Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHRIST CHURCH WOBURN SQUARE AND SAINT MATTHEW OAKLEY SQUARE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Teachers (Training and Employment)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce a scheme of mandatory training schemes for teachers after 15 years in service, whereby they have a year away from their posts in which they can have updating courses relevant to their subjects and techniques, and thereby free teaching posts for those teachers currently unemployed.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The Government's expenditure plans envisage that the number of teachers released for in-service education and induction programmes will rise from the full-time equivalent of 4,500 in 1977 to 18,500 in 1981. Replacement teachers will be needed, thus providing additional employment. I do not believe that mandatory training would be appropriate.

Mr. Wigley: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I press him further

and ask him to say whether teachers will be released on a voluntary basis so that all those who feel that they require further training will be given that opportunity? Does the Minister accept that, as a general principle, it is much better to give the opportunity for further training in this way and allow other teachers to be taken on in employment rather than have them unemployed or on job creation schemes that are totally irrelevant to their training?

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend and I set the highest possible store on effective in-service training. I hope that local authorities will take advantage of the money that the Government have put into the rate support grant for this purpose. Some local authorities have done this very well: others leave some things to be desired.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of teachers away from their posts, may I ask what advice the Government will give to any young male teacher who wants to run a football team but does not want to have a girl in the team? Does not my hon. Friend think that the recent decision of the court at Newark is absolutely farcical and a misuse of public funds on the part of the Equal Opportunities Commission?

Mr. Oakes: I suppose that I ought to recommend in-service training in the Sex Discrimination Act.

Mr. Flannery: Would my hon. Friend agree that, laudable though it may be to arrange for teachers to have a sabbatical year or something like that after 15 years, a much more practical way of easing the teachers' work would he to reduce the size of classes by devoting more funds to the educational budget?

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend knows that, given the economic difficulties of the Government, we are doing the best we can. I agree with my hon. Friend that the suggested mandatory year would be a clumsy way of providing in-service training.

Literacy

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps to implement the Bullock Report on literacy will be taken in the the next 12 months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): The Bullock recommendations were addressed to the education service as a whole, and Her Majesty's inspectors continue to collaborate closely with authorities in initiatives of many kinds. In the next 12 months assistance will be given to 29 authorities to mount in-service courses for teachers and others. In addition, my Department's programme of short courses for serving teachers for 1978–79 includes 15 which will cover various aspects of the teaching of English.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister recognise that every independent inquiry which has been held since Bullock reported four years ago shows that the position over the provision of books in schools has deteriorated? Why does the Minister refuse to implement the principal recommendation of the Bullock Committee, which was the establishment of a standing committee to ensure that there were adequate capitation allowances and that the provision of books in our schools was adequate?

Miss Jackson: We hope to have some fresh information about the provision of books in schools shortly when local authorities reply to our circular on the review of the curricular arrangements. We have, in the new rate support grant settlement, made provision for an increase of 2 per cent. in non-teaching costs which, we believe, will enable authorities to do better in the provision of books. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have not refused to implement the recommendation to which he refers. It is actively under consideration in my Department.

Mr. Clemitson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are making sufficient funds available to finance adult literacy programmes?

Miss Jackson: We hope that local authorities are making adequate funds available. Obviously some authorities do and others, perhaps, make less satisfactory provision. As my hon. Friend knows, all we can do is to advise, make some money available and hope that authorities will follow the policies of which we all approve.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that her answers so far have shown a

remarkable degree of complacency bearing in mind that in this country we spend only 0·84 per cent. of total educational spending on books? When will the Government take steps to see that we at least begin to match the international standards set by countries as diverse as Trinidad and West Germany?

Miss Jackson: I accept that it would be pleasant to be able to spend more than we do on books. What the hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten is that not all the expenditure on books is simply that contained in this part of the rate support grant. For example, when a new school is established and a library is built there, the cost of filling that library with books comes under capital provision, so that the finance available is perhaps better than the hon. Gentleman imagines.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that while we welcome the Assessment of Performance Unit and sample testing with regard to literacy from next year onwards, there is also a need for blanket testing so that children who have fallen behind in literacy have resources switched to them and no child who does not have brain damage leaves school illiterate at the age of 16? Such children are deprived for the rest of their lives in regard both to their jobs and to fitting into society.

Miss Jackson: We do not approve of blanket testing totally across the whole spectrum of children. We believe that sample testing of the kind which the APU is producing will give us a better picture nationally. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is talking about an assessment of the progress of the individual child, of course we are in favour of that and have never disputed it.

Village Schools (Closure)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the general criteria which she adopts when deciding whether or not to approve a Section 13 notice to close a village school in a rural area.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend takes into account the educational and economic factors set out in the Department's circular 5/77, "Falling Numbers and School Closures". She also gives due weight to the social and, where appropriate, denominational arguments.

Mr. Latham: Following her very regrettable decision to close Grimston School in my constituency against the express wishes of both the parents and the managers, does the Minister agree that there is growing parental support for these small schools and that the general presumption in her Department on Section 13 notices should be towards keeping them open rather than closing them?

Miss Jackson: I would contest the hon. Gentleman's assumption that our general view is to close them rather than to keep them open. What we do is to examine each case as an individual case, as we did with regard to Grimston. We know that there is often support from parents for keeping such schools open, but we take considerable advice about the educational aspects of such decisions before we make them. They are often difficult to make, but we seek to make them in the interests of the welfare of the children.

Mr. Grocott: May I suggest to my hon. Friend an additional criterion in deciding whether or not to close a school, which is that she should favour the closure of schools in the constituencies of those Tory Members who voted for cut-backs in public expenditure and should oppose the closing of schools in the constituencies of Labour Members who are in favour of public expenditure? In this connection, will she look particularly sympathetically at the representations of the people of Wall, in Lichfield, who are very concerned indeed about the possible closure of their school?

Miss Jackson: I look sympathetically at representations from all groups of parents, whoever they are fortunate or unfortunate enough to be represented by.

Mr Freud: Does the Minister accept that financial economic criteria are the very worst reasons for closing small schools? Whatever is meant by a school being "financially viable" must be insane when one looks at the realistic benefits which a small school bestows on those who go to it.

Miss Jackson: I do not accept that finance should be totally ruled out, but I certainly accept that it should be very much a secondary consideration and that the educational experience which child-

ren are having in a school should be the matter of prime concern.

Student Grants

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reassessment of the student grant system is being made in the light of other Government schemes for tax-free payments to young workers involved in approved training, work experience and similar projects.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend has now begun her discussions with local authorities about improved financial support arrangements for the 16–18 age group. Those will need to cover many aspects, including the availability of training allowances for young people.

Mr. Hooley: In view of the far-reaching plans by the Manpower Services Commission, involving the payment of tax-free weekly sums to young people, is it not time that urgent consideration was given by my hon. Friend's Department to the position of boys and girls in schools, or undergoing further education, so that decisions about their future should be taken in the interests of the children on the advice of the parents and not simply on financial grounds?

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend has already had two meetings with local authorities to discuss this and other matters. There is another meeting to come. I would stress to my hon. Friend and to the House that the MSC courses, where money is being paid to young people in this age group, are for comparatively very short periods of time compared with someone staying in full-time education.

Dr. Hampson: Is the Minister aware of the evaluation study of the MSC which shows that there is such poor quality in terms of literacy and the capacity to handle figures at a functional level that the MSC is calling for a tripling of the preparatory courses in literacy and numeracy? What does he think this shows about standards in some of the schools with regard to these basic things which are so crucial for people getting jobs?

Mr. Oakes: Where youngsters have difficulty with reading or numbers, I am very delighted that the present MSC


scheme has far more educational topping-up provision than did the previous schemes.

University Vice-Chancellors and Principals

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she next intends to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors of the universities.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I have no immediate plans to meet the Committee of University Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Mr. Rifkind: When the Secretary of State next meets the Vice-Chancellors, will she discuss with them ways of encouraging industry to make a greater financial contribution towards the universities? Does she agree that while industry for the most part accepts its responsibility for the training of unskilled or semi-skilled members of its work force, it makes very little contribution at the moment in the form of sponsored studentships to the highly-skilled engineers, physicists and scientists upon whom industry depends?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman may know that industry has recently entered into a joint system of industrial scholarships with my Department which are jointly funded between industry and the Government. Secondly, we have recently extended the amount which we permit to be paid to sponsored students before they become liable to a reduction in the normal mandatory award. Therefore, we are doing the best we can to encourage greater industrial interest in higher education.

Mr. Dalyell: What exactly are the criteria upon which these industrial scholarships are to be awarded?

Mrs. Williams: In the first year the industrial scholarships will be awarded to young men and women who in their school records show leadership capacity and who intend to go into manufacturing industry. In the first year the awards will be tenable only for the specialised and enriched engineering courses with a strong management element in them, but beyond the first year they will be tenable with regard to any engineering course approved

by the Council of Engineering Institutions.

Universities (Industrial Democracy)

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the position of the discussions on industrial democracy in the universities.

Mr. Oakes: The report of the working party established by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in October 1976, to consider the implications of industrial democracy for the universities, was published in March. I hope to receive shortly the views of the University Grants Committee on the report's conclusions.

Mr. Hoyle: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this kind of working party could be considered by us? Would it not have been better to have involved the trade unions directly in these talks so that at least an impartial report could have been prepared?

Mr. Oakes: I would prefer not to comment in any detail at this stage. The University Grants Committee, in considering this, will shortly be submitting a report to me. I hope that it will consider this report not in isolation but in the context of the Prime Minister's statement about the White Paper on industrial democracy.

Mr. Stokes: Is not this whole concept for discussion in universities absolute nonsense? Is not the purpose of universities to discuss true learning rather than ephemeral and fashionable political notions?

Mr. Oakes: I am amazed that that view still prevails, even by the hon. Gentleman, in this House. Universities work as a team, with both the non-academic staff and the academic staff working together.

School Transport

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to publish her Department's revised proposals for school transport.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to bring forward her revised proposals for school transport.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend will publish fresh proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of fares to travel to school for schoolchildren imposes a very heavy burden on many parents and guardians, particularly when added to the other expenses of attending school? In these circumstances, is there not a very urgent case for introducing proposals to restore half fares for all schoolchildren who need to use transport to attend school?

Miss Jaskson: I am well aware that this cost is often a heavy burden on many parents. I am afraid that the question of half fares is one not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend accept that too many local authorities rigidly apply the three-mile limit and that they could use a degree of moderation in this respect? Will she reconsider impressing upon the Secretary of State for Transport that all children who require school transport should have either free transport or at least an agreed concessionary fare, because I can assure her that this causes bitter disputes among the parents of children attending the same school?

Miss Jackson: I accept that entirely, and it is our hope that the proposals which we shall put before the House will contain the basis of a scheme which will enable all children to travel to school for a reasonable sum, and perhaps even for the same sum. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is within the power of local authorities at present to give assistance to parents but that many of them choose not to exercise those powers at the moment.

Mr. Marten: The hon. Lady said "as soon as possible". Can she be a little more explicit and definite about the time scale of this proposal?

Miss Jackson: I hope to lay these proposals before the House before the Summer Recess.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, but does she not accept that any introduction of a new system which penalised parents who at present get free transport would be un-

desirable? Therefore, will she agree to consider introducing a phased system so that no parent will have to pay more in fares after the scheme is introduced?

Miss Jackson: This is one of the difficult matters that we are considering. We are anxious to find a low-cost solution which minimises the loss of benefit to those who are getting free transport at present. But, as my hon. Friend will recollect, it is the burden of protest from those at present getting free transport as well as the concern of local authorities which has made it difficult to introduce a solution so far. However, we hope that those at present enjoying free transport for their children will recognise the problems faced by others.

Mr. Beith: When the Minister referred just now to the possibility of all children paying the same or a similar fare, did she have it in mind that it would be quite unjust to expect parents whose children use school transport only because their local village schools have been closed to pay to send their children to schools in other villages?

Miss Jackson: Where free transport is being provided in circumstances like that, it introduces an additional difficult factor. However, we are concerned to establish a fair system for the country as a whole.

Miss Maynard: Does my hon. Friend agree that children in rural areas under the three-mile limit would find it dangerous to walk to school and that the cost to which one of my hon. Friends referred falls particularly heavily on low-paid workers in rural areas? Is there not an allocation in the rate support grant for school transport, and is my hon. Friend prepared to do anything about seeing that rural authorities apply that allocation to school transport?

Miss Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, we have no power to direct local authorities about how to use their rate support grant. That is a matter for them. I take her point about the circumstances of travel to school for children in rural areas. It is one of the unfortunate features of the present system that authorities do not have to consider factors such as danger or suitability of available transport. These are matters which we hope to consider.

School Governing and Managing Bodies

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she intends to introduce legislation to implement the Taylor Report on school governing and managing bodies.

Miss Margaret Jackson: In the light of her consideration of the Taylor Report, my right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation on some aspects of school management and government as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Mr. Knox: In view of the concern by many peope about appointments to school governing and managing bodies, does not the hon. Lady think that this matter is rather more urgent? Is it not important to ensure that the people who get on to these bodies have a real interest in education and in the schools concerned rather than merely being political appointees?

Miss Jackson: I agree with the hon. Member. It is a source of much dismay to the Government that recently a number of Conservative authorities have thrown everyone off their governing bodies other than those who are prepared to support Tory Party policy. We feel that much action on the report can be taken, and, of course, it does not all need legislation. Therefore, it is within the power of those local authorities to introduce such changes now. But we hope to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend prepared to look at an apparent anomaly whereby a school manager or governor who is a councillor can get some form of remuneration or expenses whereas a school governor or manager who is not a councillor gets nothing? It would appear that this is at the discretion of the local authority. Will my hon. Friend look at and try to regularise the position?

Miss Jackson: There is much at present which is at the discretion of the local authority, and we shall have to look at all these matters when we consider our legislative proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not the hon. Lady think that the role of parents in the running of schools and in serving on managing and governing bodies is of

the utmost importance? Does she not agree also that in the main the local authorities, especially the parish councils, play a vital role in the running of these schools? Will she assure the House that the relationship between local councils and governing and managing bodies will continue in any legislation that her right hon. Friend introduces?

Miss Jackson: I accept what the hon. Member says about the role of parents. As I have said several times, we hope that local authorities will take steps, which they are free to take at present, to involve parents more in the management and governing of schools. As for the hon. Member's comments about minor authorities such as parish councils, we are still in the process of consultation, but we have indicated already that we are not convinced that the suggestion in the Taylor Report that the right of minor authorities to nominate to governing bodies should be withdrawn is the right approach, and we shall also be considering that.

Student Grants

Dr. Hampson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated overall cost to public funds within which her discussions with the local authorities on grants for 16-yearolds are taking place.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his Question on 25th May.

Dr. Hampson: Does the Secretary of State recognise the concern in all parts of the House at the pitifully small scope of discretionary awards at a time when the age group is expanding? Is she quite certain that her priority is right in launching this new scheme of awards rather than coping with the lottery of discretionary awards in these vocational areas, which would help young people to get jobs?

Mrs. Williams: I notice that on 10th June the hon. Member attacked my proposals as being "a useless bribe". He went on to say that he would give himself the priority of straightening out the lottery with regard to further education awards. However, I think that the hon. Member sounded off without studying what was proposed. What is proposed


is specifically help for those staying on in further education to pursue vocational courses as well as those staying on at school. I advise the hon. Member to study my proposals before condemning them.

Mr. James Lomond: Take 100 lines.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Conservative Party merely talks about these matters but that this Government are the first Government to do something about them? Is she aware that from many Government supporters there is a great welcome for her extension of this scheme to sixth formers?

Dr. Hampson: That is the point.

Mr. Price: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the city of Sheffield, a Labour-controlled city, is one of the first to get on with it? We in this House do not want to see our sixth forms become a sort of class institution, and this is one of the very best ways of making sure that everyone has the chance to take advantage of sixth form education.

Mrs. Williams: I agree wholly with my hon. Friend, and for two reasons. The first is that we have one of the lowest staying-on rates in Western Europe, and that seems to me to be appalling. One reason for it is the lack of financial support for young people after the age of 16. The second is that what has been described by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) as "a useless bribe", when applied to students in higher education, is normally welcomed in all quarters of the country. We are simply proposing to extend what is available in higher education to further education, where we desperately need more trained and skilled people.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is still a crime to allow children to leave school at the age of 16 without jobs to go to? Therefore, whatever grants are made to children, will she make certain that they are high enough to encourage them to continue at school until we can find jobs for them?

Mrs. Williams: The rate is under discussion between me and the local education authorities. I hope to bring about a

position where a young person can make a free choice between further education and leaving school rather than being forced to make that choice because of financial considerations.

Voucher Schemes

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requests she has received from local education authorities for permission to introduce experimental education voucher schemes.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent consultations he has had concerning the educational voucher scheme.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have received no requests and had no consultations about the introduction of voucher schemes.

Mr. Ovenden: My right hon. Friend is aware of the decision by the Kent education committee to go ahead with this ludicrous waste of educational resources. Does she not regard it as a strange sense of priorities that an authority with one of the worst teacher-pupil ratios in the country and an abysmal record in nursery education, and an authority which cannot afford to reintroduce free school milk in junior schools, can afford to go ahead with schemes such as this?

Mrs. Williams: I find the position amazing. Kent is third from the bottom in nursery provision in the country as a whole, it has a lower average of pupil-teacher ratios than the average of counties, let alone the average in the country as a whole, and it has refused to provide free school milk for primary school children. Yet that county now seems to be able to consider bringing in a ludicrous voucher scheme which would produce nothing but a waste of money.

Mr. Beith: Has the right hon. Lady received any clear indication at all from the Conservative Front Bench that it wishes her to embark on this public expenditure?

Mrs. Williams: I have received a most enjoyable cacophony from the Conservative Front Bench. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), true to his normal backing of all reactionary ideas, has indicated that voucher schemes are


a first-rate proposal for turning the clock back in education. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who has a rather more balanced approach to education, indicated in a recent "Panorama" programme that he was far from enthusiastic about the voucher scheme and used language with which I could not more agree, that
We cannot turn the education system upside down. We cannot take risks with children's education.
I say "Amen" to that.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Why is my right hon. Friend so gentle with the Conservatives? Does she not recognise that this is yet another political gimmick by the Friedman centre of the Conservative Party, which is trying to introduce the cash nexus into British education? Will it not be rejected at the forthcoming General Election in common with the rest of Conservative policies?

Mrs. Williams: What amazes me about the voucher scheme is that the very study that was undertaken in Kent indicated that as a way of meeting parents' wishes this was a foolish and administratively inefficient way of proceeding. Therefore, even on the arguments advanced by the Opposition, this is an absurd aberration and an absurd experiment. Anybody who studies the scheme, as I have done, will see that as a recipe for overcrowding some schools, overstraining them and leading to wasteful expenditure on temporary accommodation, while other schools are under-used, it is a totally irresponsible proposal and no sensible education spokesman would dream of advocating it.

Mr. Aitken: Before the right hon. Lady is overcome by her eloquence in criticism of Kent, will she reflect on one very important statistic contained in what more fair-minded observers would regard as a very interesting experimental study by Kent? It is to the effect that 90 per cent. of parents among those questioned in the survey wanted the greater freedom of choice which an educational voucher system might provide. Even if there are administrative difficulties, should there not be a rather more constructive approach to an experiment along the lines suggested by Kent?

Mrs. Williams: What the hon. Gentleman does not appear to appreciate is that

the study undertaken for Kent indicated that, as a way of meeting parental choice, this was neither an efficient nor a sensible system for undertaking such a scheme. If the hon. Gentleman had read the survey, I am sure that he would not follow that particular route.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend make clearly known in advance to authorities which might take up this experiment the tremendous cost involved, as she illustrated in an answer she gave to me last Friday?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, indeed. It is difficult to make any clear estimate, but the estimate that Kent made for a single division of a county with 14 education divisions within it was the sum of £600,000. That is for one division of one county out of 100-plus education authorities. That would give no advance at all. That is the basic administrative overload cost of running a voucher system. If the system were to be extended to independent schools, because the voucher would be payable to every parent with a child in an independent school the cost could be as much as £400 million. That seems to be a very strange way of spending scarce education resources.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Instead of worrying about the mote in my eye, would not the right hon. Lady be better occupied in thinking about the Benn in her own? If she is so strongly against the voucher, on which apparently she has a totally closed mind, why does she not put forward proposals of her own for extending parental choice and influence, since the overwhelming majority of parents interviewed in the survey declared that the policies of the present Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science were denying them the freedom of choice which they wanted?

Mrs. Williams: On the first matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I noticed that in a recent "Panorama" programme he said:
An experiment is going to be quite expensive, and if it was introduced generally it would cost a lot of money, and that creates great difficulties.
That hardly sounds like an enthusiastic welcome to the voucher system.
Secondly, the parents who responded in Kent and who said that they were


anxious to have much more parental choice were responding in the most selective county in the entire country. What we on the Labour Benches have always argued is that a strictly selective system does not give parents a choice at all. In three-quarters of the cases it reduces the choice because children have to go to the secondary modern school.
Thirdly, contrary to much talk on the Opposition Benches, I should inform hon. Members that we have asked all authorities to provide prospectuses of information for parents. We have indicated our acceptance in principle of the Taylor Report on parent governors. If I may give one example relating to Kent, that county has totally turned its face against the appointment of parent governors to governing bodies in that county.

Further Education Pupils

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate her Department has of the number of young people over 16 years of age who will be undertaking full-time secondary education in the academic year 1978–79.

Mr. Oakes: My Department expects about 309,000 pupils over school leaving age to be attending maintained secondary schools in January 1979. In 1978–79 there are expected to be 226,000 boys and girls on full-time or sandwich non-advanced further education courses.

Mr. Haselhurst: Of the 390,000 pupils, what number does the Minister estimate will be staying on at school as a result of the proposal to support them out of public funds? Does this proposal imply that he and his Department realise that there will be a serious increase in youth unemployment?

Mr. Oakes: The figure I quoted was 309,000. That figure relates to pupils who are expected to stay on at school under the present arrangements. We hope that when the grant system comes into operation there will be a considerable increase in the participation rate of those staying on at school.

Mr. Newens: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that some children are being denied the opportunity to stay on at school because of the economic burden that this represents on families? In these

circumstances, what further steps does he envisage taking in addition to those already taken to make it possible for all children above the age of 16 who desire to undertake further education to take advantage of that opportunity?

Mr. Oakes: The main weapon in the hands of the Government to persuade children to stay on at school is the financial one. In 1973–74 the percentage staying on at school was 24 per cent., in 1976–77 it was 28 per cent., and it is estimated to reach 29 per cent. next year, even without the student support system.

Mr. Forman: Will the Minister break down the figure of 309,000 as between boys and girls? Does he agree with me that one of the most tragic aspects of the position is the poverty of ambition among all too many girls in this country?

Mr. Oakes: I do not have in my possession the proportion as between boys and girls. If the figure is available, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

O-Level Examination

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what obligations are imposed in the Education Act 1944 on the governors of secondary schools to provide an O-level syllabus.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member to explain that no specific obligations are imposed by the Education Acts on schools to provide O-level courses and that the question whether such an obligation was implicit in the provisions of the Acts, if raised, would be one for the courts to decide. I understand that Nottinghamshire has now decided as a matter of policy that comprehensive schools in the county should offer both O-level and CSE courses.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that until recently the Sutton Centre comprehensive school in Sutton-in-Ashfield did not offer an O-level syllabus to its pupils? Was not this a grave dereliction of duty, and is not the decision of the newly elected Conservative education committee, to which the Minister has referred, most welcome?

Miss Jackson: My right hon. Friend has recently made clear that she regrets


that some comprehensive schools, such as the Sutton Centre, have chosen not to offer O-level courses. She is grateful that the decision has been changed.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that a Conservative Member should be so ignorant of the extent to which the selective system of education, which the Conservatives have purported to support for the last 25 or 30 years, created precisely the situation in which only a small number of schools had the opportunity of providing O- and A-level syllabuses? Is it not one of the greatest features of the development of comprehensive education that this sort of question can be asked by Conservative Members?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I was careful to say that we regretted that such courses were not offered in comprehensive schools. We are all too well aware that in the selective system these courses were frequently not offered to many children who could have benefited from them.

Dr. Boyson: Does the Minister appreciate the strength of the point that many people supported comprehensive schools because they wanted their children to go to schools that could offer GCE courses? Is it not ironic that certain comprehensive schools taking children of all abilities do not offer O-levels, which are necessary for professional and higher education. How many comprehensive schools follow the example of the school in my hon. Friend's constituency and do not offer O-levels?

Miss Jackson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an accurate figure, but I can tell him that it is a very small number indeed, and it has been made more than clear that we do not believe that this is a satisfactory policy.

Mathematics and Science Teaching

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the number of cases where mathematics and science subjects are being taught by inadequately qualified teachers, or teachers who are not trained in these subjects at all; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Oakes: This information will be available by the end of the year.

Mr. Madel: Does the Minister agree that as there is such an urgent need for skilled people in industry, which requires the good and effective teaching of mathematics in schools, it is vital that this information is obtained by the Government, otherwise their expensive retraining schemes for teachers from arts subjects into mathematics will be ineffective?

Mr. Oakes: We are aware of the problem and are doing something about it. In 1974 there was a considerable shortage of mathematics and science teachers, and when the Conservative Party was in power nothing was done about it. We have set up the courses, but it will be some time before the products of those courses are available to the schools.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that there is an inadequate supply of properly trained teachers of religious subjects, just as there is in science and mathematics? What steps are the Government taking to make this a more important subject within teaching and to ensure that there are sufficient fully qualified teachers trained in this vital area of moral and religious education in schools?

Mr. Oakes: I agree that there is a shortage of graduate teachers, but there is not the overwhelming shortage of non-graduate teachers in religious subjects that there is in mathematics and science. We have sent a circular to local authorities and we should know by the summer of this year how many people who are qualified to teach religious education are teaching it.

Redbridge (Secondary Reorganisation)

Mr. Bendall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is prepared to agree to the request made in the letter she has received from the Redbridge Education Committee asking for further time to consider the reorganisation of secondary education.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I received proposals from the Redbridge authority on 1st June for the elimination of selection within its area. Officers of the authority will shortly be invited 10 discuss these proposals in detail with officials of my Department.

Mr. Bendall: Will the Minister please explain why she chose 1st June as the date


on which the proposals had to be put to her and why she found it necessary to send her letter by special messenger?

Mrs. Williams: I did not choose 1st June. The authority had to explain its position by 22nd May. It asked for an extension of time, and before an extension could be refused or granted, it had sent us a fresh letter dated 1st June with new proposals. It is the authority which has overtaken its earlier request.

Mr. Bendall: What about the second part of the question concerning the special messenger?

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does not my right hon. Friend regard as unsatisfactory the reply that she received, which was cobbled up at the last moment by the chairman of the committee without any reference to the committee? Is it not unsatisfactory that that reply extends selection until 1986 and that the authority, which has had at least 10 years to make up its mind, now complains that it has not had enough time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is simply procrastination by the authority, which is awaiting the unlikely event of a Tory Government in the near future?

Mrs. Williams: If the authority's intentions are genuine, it will have every possible opportunity to make that clear to my officials. If they are not, my officials will advise me to take the appropriate action

NORTHFLEET

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Northfleet.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Northfleet.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he could find time to visit my constituents in the coming months he would soon find how much they welcome the Government's success in bringing down inflation to the lowest level for five years? Would he not find it refreshing if, just for once, the Leader of the Opposition would stop carping and would give a similar welcome to the country's success in overcoming its economic problems?

The Prime Minister: It is the case that, thanks to some moderation in wage settlements during the last 12 months and to other factors, the inflation rate has gone down, with benefit to our exports and our living standards. I hope that we can maintain that. Our rate of inflation is now lower than that of a number of our major competitors. On the other hand, it is still higher than the rate in Japan, West Germany and the United States. I should like to see it comparable with those countries as well.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have repeatedly said that if wage rises were 10 per cent. or more inflation would soon be back into double figures. Now that the figures are showing that wages are rising at the rate of 15 per cent. or more, what is the Prime Minister's forecast of the annual rate of inflation?

The Prime Minister: I am too wary about the inaccuracy of forecasts to start a competition of that sort, but I have no reason to withdraw from my consistent position on this, which I uttered as recently as a fortnight ago to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) when I said to him that we need a substantially lower rate of increase in earnings next year if we are to maintain inflation at its present level. It is far better to get the major basic lesson home than to indulge in battles of forecasting statistics.

Mrs. Thatcher: In that case, why did the Prime Minister say a fortnight ago that he did not see why inflation should ever rise above single figures again?

The Prime Minister: I hope that some time I will get the right hon. Lady to understand the simple point—

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Do not be so patronising.

The Prime Minister: I would not need to be patronising if the right hon. Lady were not artificially slow. I know that really she is intelligent, but she tries to misunderstand this point.

Mr. Fairbairn: Be your age.

The Prime Minister: There is no reason for inflation to rise into double figures if we adhere to our policies and keep increases in incomes in single figures. If I have said that once, I have


said it 20 times, and perhaps some day it will dawn into the heads of the Opposition.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is an admirable situation, according to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, when inflation is coming down and wages are going up? That is a wonderful society.

The Prime Minister: Yes, but we must ensure that productivity and increased production keep level with the wages that are being paid. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is the major point. Certainly, when I reflect on all the questions that I have been asked about special cases and all the people who should be allowed to escape, I must say that we have not had very much help from the Opposition in trying to keep earnings at a reasonable level.

Sir G. Howe: As earnings are rising at an annual rate of 15 per cent., and in view of the Prime Minister's misleading attempts to grapple with that fact a moment ago, does it not show that his answer of a fortnight ago was as complacent as it was characteristic?

The Prime Minister: What I think it shows, and what I hope everyone on the Opposition side will grasp, is that it is necessary to carry the consent of the people of this country. I do not believe that either side of the House stands for a statutory incomes policy. Therefore, the people of the country can decide to take decisions out of the Government's hands where the Government are not the direct controller. Where we are, as in the case of public servants, we have stood firm, without any help from the Opposition. I was pressed by the CBI and others to do that. We have played our part as a Government in trying to keep inflation down. I hope some day to have some help from the Opposition.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20th June.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to think about the problem of Rhodesia? Does he not think that it is time to heed the views of people of such divergent opinions as Mr. Smith and Mr. Sithole and start to support the internal settlement? Does he not agree that the pursuit of a vendetta against Mr. Ian Smith is no substitute for a positive policy by a Government who ought to be but are not seeking peace in Central Africa?

The Prime Minister: The answer to those questions is "No, Sir".

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister, on the contrary., make it absolutely clear that the House of Commons has always stood by the principle that sanctions will be lifted only when majority rule acceptable to the people as a whole has been achieved? Does he agree that the fact that some Members of the House have reneged on the commitments of their own previous Government is no reason for changing the view of the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I understand that that has been the view of both sides of the House, and, therefore, I assume that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is not speaking for the Opposition on this matter.

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend consider the still unacceptable level of unemployment? What plans are there, in view of the present rate of inflation, to begin to expand the economy in order to provide employment in the areas which at the moment have high levels of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The figures for unemployment, as my hon. Friend may have seen, although in gross total they are higher, reflect the number of school leavers last month. Excluding school leavers, the level is down. More important, perhaps, the number of vacancies in employment exchanges has risen, and I always regard that as a good sign. The unemployment level is still too high, but my hon. Friend will know of the steps taken by the Government through the temporary employment subsidy and of the international measures that we are trying to secure in co-operation with other major industrial countries. That is the best way, as well as keeping inflation down, to overcome unemployment.

Mr. John Davies: May I ask the Prime Minister to come back to the question of Rhodesia? Is he not aware that the issue of a solution in Rhodesia transcends the whole question of party relationships? Is he aware that at the moment we are in the course of losing perhaps the single greatest opportunity of achieving a solution to this problem? Can he not, please, bring his influence to bear to try to ensure that the grave suspicion which is harboured against his Government by those who have signed the internal settlement is removed, to enable a proper peaceful solution to take place?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the significance of this issue transcending the parties. He is quite right. I can assure him in return that hardly a day goes by without the Foreign Secretary or myself being involved in some exchange or other in an attempt to get all the parties to this dispute together. There is no doubt that the attitude of some of the parties—I shall not particularise this afternoon—is making it difficult for them to co-operate. As far as I can sec, there is no prospect of this Government or the American Government being able to enforce a settlement. However, we are constantly making moves with all the individual parties concerned to try to get them to discuss this issue and secure a settlement as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend say how many jobs would be lost if the Opposition's proposals to cut public expenditure were introduced, and how many kidney patients would suffer if the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition when she was in the United States that we should not spend any more money on kidney machines were carried out?

Mrs. Thatcher: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: I am unable to give such figures, but it is time that we had a clear statement from the Opposition about whether they wish to decrease or increase public expenditure. I have here a clear list of additional expenditure that the Opposition want to undertake, but they go on pretending to the country that they wish to cut public expenditure. Which is it?

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20th June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).

Mr. Temple-Morris: May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of inflation, because two weeks ago he clearly informed the House that there was no reason why single-figure inflation could not continue indefinitely if he were able to continue his policies? Does he now agree, since he now knows the facts, that wage rates are running at 15 rather than 10 per cent., that unemployment is up and that the matter is far more complicated? Will he tell the whole truth to the House and to the country as to the prospects of phase 4 when phase 3 has already failed?

The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's gleeful gloom when he thinks that phase 3 has failed. It is understandable that he should want it to fail. If it fails, he, with others, will have helped to make it fail. But I do not think that we should accept one month's figures annualised as being necessarily the true reflection of the situation. For example, 800,000 building workers have today settled for 9·75 per cent. That is a most significant addition to the present statistics. Although, as I have said on a number of occasions, I believe, with regret, that the figure will be above 10 per cent., it may well not reach the annualised total suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I still have considerable hopes for phase 4, but whether or not my hopes are justified makes no difference to the need for the Government to state their position. I promise the hon. Gentleman that that will be done clearly, truthfully and without regard to any of the consequences.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time today to contact President Carter? If he finds that most inconvenient, will he endeavour to do so at least before 13th and 14th July, when President Carter is to visit Germany? Will he impress upon the President that it is time that the United States, Germany and France helped this country by reflating their economies so that there could be an improvement in the standards of the Western world?

The Prime Minister: I shall not be contacting President Carter today, but I shall be visiting New York, with the permission of my colleagues, next Monday in order to receive the Hubert Humphrey Memorial Award. I hope to have conversations with President Carter then. I trust that we shall be able before 13th and 14th July to work out a mutually agreeable package on growth and the other issues that are now facing us.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SECRETARY OF STATE'S SPEECH)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services in Harrogate on 5th June 1978 about the Health Service represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Latham: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will regret that the Secretary of State is in hospital and wishes him a speedy recovery? Was it not extraordinary that the Secretary of State made such a complacent and inadequate speech to the nurses on that occasion that he had to send a telegram of apology three days later?

The Prime Minister: That is not my understanding. I have read the speech and the telegram. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has done both or either. My right hon. Friend said that he wished that there had been more time for questioning and that his speech therefore should have been cut a little shorter. That is a very different matter from what the hon. Gentleman suggested. I dare say there is none of us in the House who has not at times regretted that one's speech was overlong. Certainly I have.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from a Conservative Government increasing their expenditure on the National Health Service, thus strengthening the Service, they would actually reduce such expenditure by, according to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), setting up two Health Services, one privately financed for those who could afford it and with a residual and inferior State service for the rest? Is not this question another example of Tory hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: Yes. My right hon. Friend would not expect me to agree with that extreme language. It is true that the Opposition were given the chance to spell out their policy on 20th April. However, the questions were never answered. Perhaps we shall get an answer now. Does the Conservative Party, if it is ever elected to govern, propose to bring in new charges for those who go to see a doctor? Does it propose to bring in new charges for being in hospital? Does the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—stand by his exact words, which naturally I read when I quote:
We have to live within
the amount that is already being given on the National Health Service
and there is no possibility of extra money"?
Which is it?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As Prime Minister's Question Time is the time for the Prime Minister to answer questions, is he able to answer the question whether the National Health Service cash limits will have to bear the employers' national insurance surcharge of £100 million? If that is so, is not that £50 million up last month and £100 million down this month? If that is not so, why on earth cannot the Government answer the question and make that clear?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about these matters. The cost to the National Health Service this year will be about £44 million. The increase will not affect the finances of health authorities until mid-November. Therefore, there is no need at this stage to inject any additional money or to amend the cash limits.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—
Class III, Vote 2, Agricultural Support (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland).
Class III, Vote 6, Other Agricultural Services (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland).
Class III, Vote 10, Forestry.


Class IV, Vote 15, Trade, Industry and Employment (Scottish Economic Planning Department).
Class VII, Vote 2, Housing (Scottish Development Department).
Class XIII, Vote 18, Department of the Registers of Scotland.
Class XIII, Vote 22, Other Services: Scottish Office.—[Mr. Foot.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POLITICAL FUNDS)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the application of funds for political purposes and any other related purposes by companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1948.
Unlike trade unions, which have been subject to such regulations for the past 50 years, companies have never been subjected to anything of the sort. Indeed, the captains of industry in their ivory boardrooms have been completely free to indulge in any whim they fancy. In the main they have supported the Conservative Party, but my Bill is designed to bring in related organisations as well as political parties.
Some related organisations are queer fish. For example, there is British United Industrialists. No one is quite sure for what that organisation stands. However, we know that when the Companies Act 1967 appeared on the statute book—it dealt with disclosure of information and amended company legislation—the chairman of the organisation said that it would dissolve itself as a limited company. When asked why it would do so, he said:
To stop snoopers finding out more about us than they need to.
We suspect that that organisation acts as a cover for the Conservative Party and that its funds—which are given by big business—go directly into the coffers of the Conservative Party.
There is Aims of Industry, or Aims, as it is now known. It claims to be nonpolitical but there is no doubt that its members are—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Fascists.

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend says that they are Fascists, but we know that they are anti-nationalisation and anti-Labour Party. We know that their campaign substantially helped the Tory Party at election time.
The Economic League is a strange body. It was supposed to be set up to provide positive and economic education from the standpoint of free enterprise However, there is a more sinister form to it. We know that Reinforced Steel Services kept secret files on employees. They were secret files that stated
Check through the Economic League
or
No history known to the Economic League.
We find companies supporting Common Cause. That is a cold-war organisation that concerns itself with Left-wing Members, crypto-Communists and occasionally even real Communists. I notice that companies are now shying away from that sort of organisation.
We are always hearing the Opposition talk about democracy in trade unions, but it is time that we brought about democracy in companies. I am here to protect the interests of shareholders. Consequently I hope to receive the complete and unanimous support of the Opposition for the case that I shall put forward.
At present if a company decides to contribute to a political party or related organisation, it is only the board of directors that takes such a decision. If the shareholders do not like it, they can lump it. A shareholder of a large company wrote to me, among others, and explained that he had written to the chairman of the company and lodged the strongest objection to the company giving £10,000 to the Conservative Party. He received a reply from the chairman stating that he, the chairman, believed that that policy was in the best interests of the shareholders of the company. The chairman wrote that if the Labour Party were elected to office, they might nationalise the company, or parts of it.
The shareholder said
But when the Conservatives were in office I took shares out in the company. Those shares stood at 194p. When the Conservatives went out of office they stood at only 35p. Now under Labour they are 117p. Why cannot we give a contribution to the Labour Party?
He may have a strong point, but the real issue is that that shareholder was not consulted before £10,000 was given to the Conservative Party.
I want to bring companies into line with the position of trade unions under the Trade Union Act 1913. What would happen if, under the Bill, a board of directors decided that it wanted to give a donation to a political party or related organisation? First, it would have to ballot all the shareholders. Only if a majority of the shareholders said "Yes" could it go ahead with that sort of donation. The donation would have to be made from a separate political fund. That fund would have to be set up by the company. Only the shareholders who had agreed to a percentage of their dividend being taken out and used for political purposes would have their money put into that fund.
The contribution would be made from the fund and the shareholders who did not want to contribute in that way could apply to the company's head office for an exemption form. It would be beholden on the company to let each shareholder know that he or she had that right—namely, that they could apply to head office for an exemption form so that their dividends would not be deducted for political purposes.
Surely there is nothing wrong with that sort of democracy. I do not understand how anybody could oppose the argument that what is sauce for the goose as regards trade unions is sauce for the gander as regards companies. It seems that this sort of reform is long overdue. It should have been introduced long ago. I do not think that company chairmen or directors of powerful companies should be allowed to decide to use their companies' money in this way without taking account of the views of their shareholders. It is completely wrong. This kind of democratic reform is long overdue. That is why I hope that I shall be given leave to bring in this measure. It can be only for the good of companies.
I am not criticising the organisations

to which these funds go. All I am saying is that, if companies are to do this kind of thing, they should at least have the permission of shareholders.

Mr. Sedgemore: And the customers.

Mr. Hoyle: And the customers as well. I completely agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment it comes from the customers. We pay. I want to make the shareholders pay out of their dividends. I think that is right as well. However, only those shareholders who are willing to make these contributions should be asked to make them.
I hope that I shall have the support of the whole House for this measure, which should have been brought forward over 50 years ago when the Trade Union Act 1913 was introduced.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose?

Mr. Ridley: I am seeking to oppose most strongly, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has entered on well-trodden and highly contentious ground which has been fought over for a long time and over which it would perhaps be better if the two sides could strike a bargain.
It is particularly unfortunate that it is the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne who seeks, as it were in his mind, to limit the funds available to those who are politically opposed to him. It ill behoves a Conservative Member to suggest that we should return to contracting in for the political levy just as it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to seek to win political battles by seeking to reduce the funds made available to his political opponents. It would be akin to a Labour Home Secretary seeking to hold up the alteration of parliamentary constituency boundaries because he felt that it would not he to his electoral advantage.
There has been a balance in the sense that, since the war, Labour Governments have done two things. One was to return to a position of contracting out for the unions and the other was to make companies publish in their accounts the amounts given to political parties. So,


for two moves aimed, as it were, to the advantage of the Labour Party, I am proud that there has been no move by Conservative Governments in the opposite direction—in some way seeking to get their own back—by restricting trade union funds made available to the Labour Party. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have left it there.
This measure will not greatly affect the prospects for Conservative Party fund raising. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that we raise about £9 million a year, of which over three-quarters comes from door-to-door collections made by individuals. That contrasts ill with the fact that nearly 90 per cent. of the Labour Party's funds are provided direct by trade unions.
I am not suggesting that there should be any reform in this area, but if we had a crusading, reforming spirit it would seem more appropriate that neither companies nor trade unions should be allowed to subscribe to political parties but that it should be left to individuals, out of their own consciences, to decide to which party they should give financial support.
The hon. Gentleman has not chosen to do that. He has chosen a partial and, as I shall demonstrate, unfair suggestion to penalise only the Conservative Party. First, he suggests that there should be a ballot of shareholders. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. There is one every year. Each year at the annual general meeting, shareholders can say whether they wish to vote against the political contributions made by the company.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Trade Union Act 1913. Will he tell the House when last there was a ballot of members of trade unions as to which political party, if any, they wished to support? He may not know the answer, but I do. The last ballot was the Durham miners in 1908. The miners were asked which political party the union should support.
This is all the more poignant, because I have further news for the hon. Gentleman. In SOGAT, 81 per cent. of the members are contracted out of the political levy. In ASTMS—the hon. Gentleman's union—63 per cent. are contracted out. In SLADE, 60 per cent. are contracted out. In TASS, the figure is 52

per cent. There must be a presumption. If the majority wish not to pay the political levy, the presumption is that they prefer either to pay no political subscriptions or at least to pay them to the Conservative Party, or conceivably to the Liberal Party for all I know.
When was the matter last tested? When was a ballot of the kind that the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce in his Bill last imposed on a trade union? Shame on him for being a member of a union which is not practising that which he preaches for others. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the dangers of what he is suggesting.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that individual shareholders should have the right to opt out of their share of the political contribution which a company makes. They have just that right. They can sell their shares, as the hon. Gentleman knows, if they do not wish to make the political contribution.
There is a further point. Directors are given responsibility for discharging the functions of a company in the interests of the shareholders. If they think that it is in their interests to make a political contribution to any party, they are responsible for that decision. That is absolutely the same as with trade unions. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that there should be this right for individual shareholders to opt out just as there is great difficulty for individual trade unionists to contract out.
The nationalised industries, for example, find it inconvenient for their computer systems to deduct the political contribution from the trade union levy. Therefore, people who wish to contract out of the political contribution have to claim the money back from the unions. Of course, when they make claims for the political contribution, they find that the unions do not answer their letters. We all know that it took Mr. Jack Cleminson 12 years before he got a penny back, although he made frequent annual applications to the Union of Post Office Workers to be given his political contributions which were deducted at source. He had no alternative. He cannot change his job. He cannot switch. But the shareholder can.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be short on a matter of fact. He seemed


to suggest that political contributions were paid by companies out of pre-taxed income. They are not. They are paid out of taxed income. Therefore, there is the further unfairness that trade union donations to the Labour Party are made out of untaxed money, whereas company contributions to any political party are made out of taxed income.
Companies and trade unions cannot be treated similarly. Over the years, over the battlefield of industrial dispute in these matters, a balance has been worked out which may not be entirely fair one way or the other, but it is a kind of rough justice solution. I think that it would be just as wrong for the hon. Gentleman to

seek to proceed with his Bill as it would be wrong for the Conservative Party, when in office, to seek to limit the ability of the Labour Party to raise funds from the trade unions and to upset that balance. It seems to me that the status quo should be allowed to remain.

I hope that the House will not give the hon. Gentleman leave to bring in his Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 127.

Division No. 232]
AYES
[3.49 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Madden, Max


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freud, Clement
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bates, Alf
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Bottomley, Peter
Graham, Ted
Newens, Stanley


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Noble, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, Ian
Hoffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Park, George


Cant, R. B.
Hooson, Emlyn
Parry, Robert


Carter, Ray
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Perry, Ernest


Clemitson, Ivor
Huckfield, Les
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ryman,John


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sever, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Luard, Evan
Stallard, A. W.


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stott, Roger




Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodall, Alec


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Weitzman, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tilley, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)



Tinn, James
White, James (Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William
Dr. M. S. Miller and


Torney, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Tom Litterick.


Wainwrignt, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Benyon, W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hon Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Ian


Biogs-Davison, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brotherton, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhodes James, R.


Buck, Antony
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Julian


Budgen, Nick
Lawson, Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bulmer, Esmond
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clegg, Walter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sainsbury, Tim


Cope, John
McCrindle, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Crouch, David
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
MacKay. Andrew (Stechford)
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Drayson, Burnaby
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Durant, Tony
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Elliott, Sir William
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'fd)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitney, Raymond


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Younger, Hon George


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)



Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Archibaid (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Mudd, David
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Ray Mawby.


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. George Rodgers, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. Harry Cowans, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr Bruce Grocott and Mr. William Molloy.

COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POLITICAL FUNDS)

Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the application of funds for political purposes and any other related purposes by companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1948; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPANIES)

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
The order will, if approved, remove most of the differences which exist at present between company law in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. I should acid that I intend no disrespect to the Principality if I omit it from future references in my speech. These differences have arisen for various reasons. Some have arisen through a deliberate decision that it should be so. Others—the majority—exist simply because of changes in English law which have taken place since the most recent substantive Northern Ireland enactment, the Companies (Northern Ireland) Act 1960.
There is, of course, no constitutional reason why differences should not continue to exist if these are considered to be in the best interests of Northern Ireland and—a reservation which is becoming increasingly important—they meet EEC requirements in this field. We have therefore approached the question of change with an open mind, and there has been extensive public consultation on the proposals prior to the draft being laid.
It is important to emphasise, nevertheless, the strong practical arguments in favour of uniformity in this field—arguments which do not depend on whether we are in a devolved or a direct-rule situation. Northern Ireland companies operate within the same economic and financial system as do companies in the rest of the United Kingdom, as do their shareholders and creditors. There are no commercial barriers, and it would seem good sense to have the same regulatory system for companies in Northern Ireland and Great Britain unless there are special circumstances clearly justifying separate arrangements.
It is significant that this is how the Murray Committee on company law, appointed by the Stormont Government in 1969 but not reporting until 1974, saw the situation. The Committee recommended a general policy of parity with

English law, subject to certain reservations in the majority report to which I shall refer. Although much water has passed under the bridge since the Committee completed its work. I do not think it out of place today to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Murray and his colleagues for the work which they undertook. They can take some satisfaction that their report was influential in the decision to bring forward this legislation.
I am conscious that much of the order is of a technical nature, and I doubt that hon. Members would thank me for dwelling at length on all the changes it makes in Northern Ireland law. It may be helpful, however, if I refer, first, to certain minor differences compared with English law which would remain.
For example, in England a liquidator is required to obtain the sanction of the court or of the committee of inspection to the appointment of a solicitor to assist him in the performance of his duties, whereas in Northern Ireland no such approval is necessary. It is proposed to retain this distinction.
A further example is Northern Ireland's more flexible approach to the provision of a remedy in cases of oppression of minorities—and I mean oppression of minorities in shareholders, creditors and so forth. In such cases in Northern Ireland, the burden of proof required to obtain an appropriate remedy is less onerous than it is in England.
I draw particular attention to the provisions for a Northern Ireland insolvency service for company liquidations. The Murray Report referred to the lack of such a service as
one of the most serious defects now existing in the field of company law in Northern Ireland.
The order will remedy this deficiency by providing for the appointment of an official assignee for company liquidations with duties and obligations broadly similar to those of the official receiver in England. The official assignee will be appointed by the Department of Commerce and will act under its authority, but he will also be an officer of the court.
For the first time, Northern Ireland will have a governmental authority, charged with statutory responsibility for the oversight of the proper conduct of compulsory liquidations in the interests


of the creditors and public, who will be available to act if a liquidator is not forthcoming in response to, or in the absence of, the usual commercial incentives. There are some minor differences compared with the English system in the detailed provisions for the new service, which is why I mention it in this part of my speech. but the effect is virtually the same.
As I said earlier, there have been extensive public consultations in Northern Ireland on the proposals in the draft order, and I take this opportunity to thank the organisations, companies, individuals and Members of Parliament who have made their views known to me or to the Department of Commerce during this period.
There is no doubt that there is overwhelming support for most of the provisions of the draft order, but it is also the case that considerable concern has been expressed by, and on behalf of, private limited companies which would be required under the order to make specified information about their accounts available for public inspection. This would include information about the company's balance sheet and profit and loss account, the chairman's remuneration, remuneration of directors and of staff above a specified salary limit, and contributions to charities and political parties. In other words, we should have the position which has obtained in England since 1967.
The Murray Committee was clear that the main disclosure provisions should be adopted in Northern Ireland, but the majority report hesitated about the wisdom of doing this while the Province continued to be disturbed. The representations received by my Department have stressed various aspects of this concern. Information about profitable businesses and the remuneration of individual business men might tempt terrorists into taking action against the companies or individuals concerned. Companies which are struggling financially may become a prey to take-over or to being forced out of business. There would be an unfair trading advantage for businesses—shops, in particular—which were branches of large organisations and did not have to divulge separate accounts. Companies in the Irish Republic might be put at a com-

petitive advantage in some cases if the Republic decided to allow more limited disclosures.
I have also received representations which reject such arguments. The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions has reminded me of the positive arguments in favour of disclosure which led to our decision to change the law in England, and has questioned whether the situation in Northern Ireland really justifies a continued difference in treatment.
I must tell hon. Members that I share these doubts to a considerable extent. I do not believe that the disclosure provisions would be generally damaging to industry and commerce in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I hope that they would make a positive contribution to the task of building a healthy expanding economy, which is one of the top priorities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
At this point, I should, perhaps, correct one or two widely held misconceptions. Northern Ireland does not have proportionately more private companies than Great Britain. At the last count, 96·9 per cent. of companies in Northern Ireland were private companies, as compared with 97·5 per cent. in Great Britain. Northern Ireland does not have relatively more small companies. The number of businesses in Northern Ireland with fewer than 50 workers is 93·2 per cent. compared with 93·4 per cent. in Great Britain. The total employment provided in Northern Ireland by companies with less than 50 workers each is about 35 per cent. of total employment, compared with 36 per cent. in Great Britain.
I am nevertheless sensitive to the importance of maintaining the morale and dedication of the business community in Northern Ireland which, with the magnificent co-operation of the working people of Northern Ireland, has kept the wheels of industry and commerce turning at an undiminished rate throughout the years of trouble. There is no doubt that some business men are worried about the possible effects of disclosure in the short term; and, whatever I or others may think about this, it is part of the facts of life in Northern Ireland. It has been decided, therefore, that, while the provisions relating to disclosure have been


retained in the draft order, the Department will not seek to implement the requirements for private companies until the disclosure provisions of the fourth EEC directive have to be met, and my information is that this will not be before 1982.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that limitation absolutely? By that I mean, supposing that the EEC requirements should not, for whatever reason, come into force at all, surely he is not meaning to say that the Government and a successor Government would regard themselves as bound not to implement these provisions at all.

Mr. Concannon: No. All my consultations with business people in Northern Ireland suggest that they are with the order 100 per cent. Their particular difficulty, as the Murray Committee said, relates to bringing it in while the disturbed situation continues. As I understand it, the EEC directive will not come before 1982. I assume that at that point, whatever happens to the directive, we shall be able to review any new circumstances, including any proposal for changes in the English law which obtain at that time.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. In fact, then, he means that this aspect of the order will not be implemented until the earlier of two events—either the EEC requirement or general agreement that circumstances in Northern Ireland which made its implementation at the moment undesirable had ceased.

Mr. Concannon: That is exactly the situation. I do not intend to bring this forward until the EEC obligations are with us. At that moment, we can review the situation again. That would happen before I bring in these disclosure provisions.

Mr. Ian Gow: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite met the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If the security situation in the Province should improve before 1982 or the date when the directive becomes operable, will the articles in the order which he is not proposing to activate then be activated?

Mr. Concannon: I assume that if I am under continual pressure to activate them—I should have to consider the opinion of the business fraternity in Northern Ireland—that would be a different situation. However, I have listened carefully to what many people have said. I have had consultations. We seem in Northern Ireland to do a lot of consulting. I have listened to them and I believe that this is the way of taking the business fraternity with us. We could not bulldoze through an order like this over their heads. This is one way of bringing them with us.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, one of two things has to happen. If there is a change of view in Northern Ireland, I shall respect it. But if the EEC directive comes along, unfortunately—depending on how one looks at it—we shall be bound by it at that time.
Representations received on other aspects of the draft order have been relatively few but they have been considered by the Department with great care. In some cases it is possible to take care of the point raised without amending the order. To take one example, the Jenkins Committee on company law recommended that, on the registration of notices of satisfaction of a mortgage or charge on company property, these should be signed by both the mortgagee and the mortgagor. This recommendation has not yet been implemented in England and, although it was suggested that it should be, I was reluctant to proceed on this matter in advance. However, the order provides that this recommendation could be implemented by Statutory Instrument without delay if it were decided to follow the Jenkins Committee's recommendations in Great Britain.
I have not been persuaded that any of the points raised during the consultations justified a positive amendment to the draft order as originally published, bearing in mind my starting point that there should be very good grounds for departing from uniformity.
On the other hand, this bringing together and updating of Northern Ireland company law in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom should be of great assistance to legal practitioners and accountants who at present must grapple with the company law


codes presently existing in each jurisdiction. In Northern Ireland terms, the law will be brought within two enactments, the 1960 Act and the present order. This simplification, both internally in Northern Ireland and in relation to English law, will also greatly simplify adaptations to take into account future changes in English and Community law.
I commend the draft order to the House.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I wish at the outset to extend a general welcome to this measure. I want also to express warm appreciation of the tone and spirit of the Minister's speech and of the willingness that he has shown to meet all of us in his consultations over the past few months. This proposal radically to alter company law in Northern Ireland has proven highly contentious and, as the Minister said, has generated considerable debate among those most directly concerned in the Province. In contrast to common experience of such matters of registration, I understand that in the course of consideration of this order a number of submissions were made to the Department, the vast majority of which were unfavourable.
The opponents of the order have not lacked support from one or two people in public life in Northern Ireland, who seem ever ready to jump on the band wagon of public fear and misgiving for their own personal or party purposes. For example, one noble Lord who sits in another place recently declared his intention to kill the order. I do not know to what degree he impressed or reassured those in the business community in Northern Ireland who are genuinely perturbed by some of these provisions, but his promises—one might regard them perhaps as threats—do not appear to have been backed by positive action. His success has been measured in a few column inches in the local Press.
It is the duty of responsible leaders of opinion in the Province to articulate the fears and anxieties of those they represent, but our duty extends beyond that. The willingness which some display simply to pander to fear is not responsibility and is a poor substitute for real leadership.
In determining our attitude to this proposal, we have had regard to opinion in

Northern Ireland and have engaged in lengthy consultations with representatives of the business community there. In addition, we have been guided by our repeatedly declared attitude to the legislation which seeks to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain.
In our submission to the Minister on 7th April, we said:
As a matter of general principle we have sought parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom; and would be prepared to depart from that position only when, in particular instances, regional differences or other such considerations render parity unrealistic or unsuitable.
In this respect, I have been greatly interested in the view of the Murray Committee. Paragraph 13 of its report said:
The law here (that is, in Northern Ireland) should not differ from the law in Great Britain unless there is good ground or reason for making or leaving it different. To put the matter another way, we feel that the onus of proof should he on the person who asserts that the law here on any given point should be different from the law in Great Britain and, by the same reasoning, that the existing differences in our law should be examined with a view to seeing whether there is a case for retaining those differences.
Thus, the view of the Murray Committee concurs with mine and that of my colleagues. Whether on the question of company law or any other, the onus should be on those who seek to retain differences in Northern Ireland to prove that those differences are justified.
I am bound to say that none of the arguments we have heard from those opposed to the harmonisation of our company law has persuaded us to depart from the principle of parity. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments advanced to us, but for the record I would mention only two.
We were rather surprised to hear the view expressed in some quarters that one effect of the order would be to place Northern Ireland businesses at an unfair disadvantage and to heighten competition with businesses in the Irish Republic. The Minister touched on this and mentioned that the point had been made to him. I wonder whether he might want to comment further when he winds up the debate and to give us his view as to the validity of that argument. Certainly my view would be that anything which encourages competition and thus greater effort and efficiency is to be welcomed.
The second argument put to us was that the structure of business in Northern Ireland is different from that in Great Britain and that businesses in the Province are smaller and accordingly more vulnerable to take-over and to commercial damage should their affairs become widely known. The Minister confirmed that the structure of business in the Province does not differ greatly from the structure of business in Great Britain. I mention these two arguments at this stage because they have been widely canvassed during the public debate on these proposals, and it is clearly desirable that people should know what weight those arguments carry. We are grateful to the Minister for the information he has given on those two matters and I hope that he will feel that he can elaborate still further in his winding-up speech.
The real opposition to the order has very little to do with competition and the structure of business and everything to do with the proposed provisions for the disclosure of reports and accounts. As we heard from the right hon. Gentleman, this was an area of concern to the members of the Murray Committee. Then, as now, the fear was expressed that public disclosure of accounts would make various businesses instant terrorist targets and place directors and others at great personal risk. So, while endorsing the parity principle, the Murray Committee urged the Government to postpone the implementation of the disclosure provisions until more settled conditions were restored to the Province. The CBI and others have taken the view that the Murray Committee's recommendation holds good in view of the continuing upheaval and unrest.
In our submission to the Minister we said:
Knowing as we do the genuine fears which exist amongst the business community in Northern Ireland, we have considered sympathetically the objections raised to the proposal on the grounds of security.
We went on to say:
Whether or not the fear has substance, the Government will clearly want to have regard to the fact that fear exists, and do all in its power to give reassurance where it is needed. To that end the Government might consider postponing the implementation of those sections of the draft order which provide for the publication of reports and accounts. Certainly if this could be done without prejudice to the purpose and intent of

the overall proposal, the Government would have gone some considerable way towards meeting criticisms which have been made.
In drafting that submission we could not have hoped for a better response than that given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. Those who lobbied and counselled the Government on this matter will undoubtedly be reassured by the announcement he made. These are matters on which many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues are known to hold strong views. It must be acknowledged that he has shown great willingness to be both accommodating and sympathetic in this matter.
I am sure I echo the sentiments of all concerned in expressing the hope that the delay announced may prove to be of a temporary nature, and that events in Northern Ireland may soon contribute to much greater confidence and permit the early implementation of the provisions of the order. If we have to wait for that condition, I hope that we shall not have to wait until 1982. When we come to that year I hope that meddlesome EEC directives will be a thing of the past and, for that matter, the EEC itself.
The Murray Committee spoke of the close trading and commercial links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and rightly saw the parity principle as being consistent with the economic realities of life in the 1970s and beyond, which brings me to my final point. Apart from those I have already listed, the opponents of this proposal employed one other, seemingly convincing, argument. A new companies Bill for Great Britain is expected to be published before the end of the year, and it was suggested that the proposed changes in Northern Ireland company law would soon be superfluous and in need of updating.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that my colleagues and I found the alternative argument much more attractive. If one uniform law is established, the task of amending and updating the law in future will be that much more simple and straightforward. That is to say, we support these proposals with the resultant harmonisation of the law in Great Britain, and we assume that in seeking to amend the law in future the Government will be able to introduce


United Kingdom legislation, thus removing the need for separate legislation for Northern Ireland.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: It is with some hesitation that I enter into discussion on a subject concerning the Province. I accept the case made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the Province should have the same laws as England unless there is good reason for it not to. The order will end the equivalent in Northern Ireland of the old exempt private limited company which existed in the United Kingdom until 1967 and was, I believe mistakenly, abolished in that year.
The Minister said in introducing the order that it was his intention not to implement the disclosure requirements until the EEC fourth directive required it, and he mentioned 1982 as being his approximate idea of when that might be. The fourth directive, as I understand it, will provide the opportunity for the Government to make throughout the United Kingdom similar exemptions for small private family businesses to those which now exist in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, the Government are asking the House to pass an order which will give power to the Minister to abolish in Northern Ireland a particular status when the whole trend of public opinion throughout the Common Market is moving in the reverse direction towards restoring the status of the exempt private limited company, or the proprietary company which used to exist. That is why the fourth directive makes the provision that there should be the power for the Government of the United Kingdom or any other member country to make these exemptions.
It is interesting that public opinion has moved in such a way as to produce a recognition in this House of the importance of the smaller business and the contribution that it makes. I do not believe, after a re-reading of the Jenkins Report, which led to the abolition of the exempt private company, that any Government in this country would today accept that report as an adequate case for making the changes in the law then made. It certainly does not provide an adequate case for making those changes in Northern Ireland.
The Jenkins Report did not think that there was any substance in the argument that a serious administrative burden would be placed upon exempt companies. I accept that a serious administrative burden is not being placed upon them. But the fact is that businesses in any part of the United Kingdom are today being suffocated by the amount of controls and regulations with which they have to comply. It may be possible to justify any single one of these controls, regulations and requirements, but taken together they are suffocating enterprise and initiative. I have to tell the Minister, who has a special interest in seeing a strong and vigorous economy in Northern Ireland, that this move is placing one more unnecessary burden upon companies.
The Jenkins Report referred to the National Association of Trade Protection Societies which agreed that its societies could ask exempt private companies for copies of their accounts when judging their credit-worthiness. It added that it would not only be simpler but much less embarrassing if they could see the accounts of such companies filed at Companies House. The concept that, to give a convenience to a private company that deals in credit rating, is an adequate reason for requiring thousands of companies to file their accounts at Companies House seems to be out of tune, to say the least, with current thinking.
There was considerable comment in the Jenkins Report on the question of the disclosure of credit rating for those who extend credit. I ask the Minister to examine the damage which will be done if he abolishes in Northern Ireland the exemption from disclosure provisions which have been abolished in England. I know, and the Minister knows, that the Government are considering the possibility of bringing back these exemptions. There are thousands of company accounts being filed unnecessarily. No one examines them. There is all of the work involved at Companies House in checking with companies which have to file and seeing that they do so on time. Since the format of accounts has been changed many boards of directors do not understand the accounts, let alone many others who would otherwise be interested in them.
Who looks at such accounts? There are the creditors and those who are thinking of making a take-over bid. I would have thought that the Minister would accept that, particularly in the provinces, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the West Country, there is a considerable disadvantage in the activities of the takeover bidder, who often comes from a firm in the South of England. When there is a cut-back in trade it is usually the bit in the provinces, in Northern Ireland, or in Scotland that is chopped off for rationalisation or centralisation reasons. I do not believe that there is any advantage in encouraging a take-over bidder to extend his activities into Northern Ireland.
Competitors also examine the accounts which are filed. It is nice for a competitor to be able to know another manufacturer's price. If one company is supplying a local market while its competitor is supplying markets all over England, Scotland, the West Country, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is possible for that competitor to discover the exact profit margin of the other manufacturer. He will then know what he has to do to drive the local man out of business. He cannot be got at in the same way. The larger competitor has lost his local trading activities through all of the other areas in which he trades. This is a serious risk to the one-product company, of which there are many. This risk applies to new businesses, such as those encouraged by the Northern Ireland Development Corporation. For these one-product companies disclosure means that their competitors can work out exactly their profit margin.
In England today the small businesses are at a disadvantage in terms of disclosure requirements as compared with EEC competitors. The Minister admitted that when he said that there was a possible disadvantage involving disclosure in connection with the Irish Republic. There is certainly that disadvantage in connection with the EEC. Now the Minister seeks to extend to Northern Ireland the same disadvantages that we labour under in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There is the additional question whether it is necessary to have disclosure to protect creditors. This is based upon an assumption that those who have limited liability as a benefit must pay a

price for it. That is to misunderstand the whole history and purpose of limited liability. This provision was to encourage those not involved in the running of the business to put their savings into it, to invest, knowing that they were at no greater risk than the amount of money they invested.
I would have thought that the Minister would be anxious to encourage investment in Northern Ireland. Yet he is introducing an order the effect of which will be to discourage people from forming limited liability companies and thus to discourage the outside investor. We are told that the intention is to protect the creditor. For whose benefit is credit extended? It is not extended solely for the benefit of the person extending it. It is a two-way arrangement. If people want to give credit they could ask the company for a copy of its audited accounts. It is not necessary to publish those accounts so that all and sundry may look at them.
It is said that it is general practice to look at company accounts before extending credit. I have never heard anything so daft in my life. In 25 years of business experience the only time I ever looked at the accounts of companies in Companies House was when T was thinking of taking someone over. The accounts, when filed, are ten months out of date. They are totally useless as a way of satisfying oneself about the creditworthiness of the company.
In the circumstances, I suggest that for the benefit of Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom the sooner there is extended to the United Kingdom as a whole the benefit of exempt private company status such as now exists in Northern Ireland, the better. The sooner we implement the fourth directive and allow the smaller family business to operate without disclosure the sooner we shall be making it more attractive to people to start businesses and create jobs.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) that so far from his owing any sort of apology to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies for seeking to intervene in one of these debates, we welcome not only his


intervention but that of hon. Members generally representing seats in the other parts of the United Kingdom. There is only one point on which our susceptibilities might be delicate and that is where, by inadvertence, the hon. Member slipped into describing Great Britain as the United Kingdom in contradistinction to Northern Ireland. He did it only once, but we are sensitive on that score.
What I have said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke is implicit in the statements both of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), that unless the contrary is proved, our view is that there should be parity of law between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom. If that is so, then law-making for any part of the United Kingdom must be of concern to the whole of the House and hon. Members in all parts of it ought to have the opportunity, and be encouraged, to participate.
That brings me to the one point which I wish to make. It has come to our knowledge—at least, it has been stated—that the Government contemplate a new companies Bill for Great Britain in the near future. I do not believe that the Minister of State referred to this possibility in his opening speech. Perhaps the imminence of such proposed legislation has been exaggerated, but what we would wish to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government is this. He pointed out that in future, after this order has been approved by the Privy Council, company law in Northern Ireland will consist of only two instruments—the 1960 Northern Ireland Act and this order.
The proposition I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that, if and when further legislation is introduced, the principle of parity on which he has based the case for this order ought to be carried to the point of that new legislation being legislation for the United Kingdom; for only so is it possible for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats, as for all other hon. Members, to participate in the general discussion upon the principles. The hon. Member for Basingstoke has, indeed, challenged one of the principles this afternoon. In doing that we ought to be in the position of arguing thane principles for the law of the United

Kingdom as a whole. Having done so on Second Reading, we should have the opportunity, for those specially concerned, to participate at every stage in the detailed formulation of the legislation.
It is quite true, and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this, that there are a few respects in which, even after this order, the law in Northern Ireland will deliberately be different from that in Great Britain. I shall not trouble the House with those respects. They were set out very clearly and carefully in the third appendix of the explanatory memorandum which the Department of Commerce issued simultaneously with the proposals for the draft order. But I do not think that anyone who addressed himself to those differences—I think there are four—could imagine that those differences were such as to make it impracticable, or even inconvenient, for future legislation to cover Northern Ireland at the same time.
Obviously some sort of application clause, as not infrequently happens in respect of other parts of the United Kingdom, would be necessary. But it would certainly not be laborious or clumsy. Therefore, when there is further legislation on this subject, we look forward to that legislation complying with the spirit and the principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman in that it will be United Kingdom legislation and all parts of the House will participate in debating and refining it.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I would not wish to see legislation introduced in this House applied automatically to Northern Ireland, because I believe that if that situation should ever arise our hope of seeing a Stormont Parliament being restored would be dashed for ever to the ground. I want all Northern Ireland legislation to be dealt with separately and apart, where possible, from Great Britain legislation in order to make sure that as soon as possible we can have a Stormont Parliament or Assembly re-established so that the representatives of Ulster people can deal properly and in detail—which at present we are not able to do in this House—with legislation which intimately affects their lives.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell),


who, in his customary lucid and able way, dealt with the objections to certain parts of this order. I concur in what he said. I do not wish to cover the ground which he has already dealt with. In doing so, I would not be adding anything to the hon. Gentleman's contribution or to the strength of opposition to the disclosure of accounts. However, I want to register my own opposition to part of the draft order and make this appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, with regard to the disclosure of accounts. Since in due course we are to have a new body of company law in Great Britain, I would have thought that it was wiser to wait until we saw that legislation brought before the House.
Indeed, some years ago—I think it was 1976—the Under-Secretary of State for Industry referred to likely radical changes in company law in Great Britain as a consequence of the United Kingdom being a member of the Common Market. It seems strange that the Government should be introducing a draft order which creates a greater burden for private limited liability companies in Northern Ireland than exists inside the Common Market. I wonder whether it is wise for the Government to continue with this part of the draft order, because what will happen—this certainly applies to Northern Ireland vis-à-vis the Irish Republic—is that an EEC competitor company will be able to look at the costs of the Northern Ireland company and find out what its profit margin is. But at the same time that information will be denied to the Northern Ireland private limited liability company. It is important that we should keep in line with the EEC in this regard, not just from the point of view of conformity with EEC directives but in order to ensure that we do not put onerous burdens on Northern Ireland companies which do not apply to their counterparts inside the Common Market.
In recommending the draft order to the House, the Minister referred to security. Business men in Northern Ireland are aware, as is every citizen in Ulster, that any one of us is a target for the gunman. I am positive that if the terrorists see that some man is extremely wealthy they may contemplate kidnapping him. That makes life more difficult for the business man who contributes to the wealth of the Province and who provides the jobs which are desperately needed.

We have 60,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland. That is certainly nearly 60,000 too many. I ask the Minister not to dismiss lightly the complaints which have been raised by the business community about the security risk which this draft order will bring about.
The business community in Northern Ireland welcomes the greater part of this order. It does not mind the disclosure of accounts. All it asks is that in the first place it should not be required to disclose them at present while terrorism continues and, secondly, that the order should keep in line with company law in the Common Market so that businesses in Northern Ireland are not at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in the Common Market, especially with those in the Irish Republic.
I ask the Minister to think again about this. If he insists on pushing ahead with the order in this form, I hope that he will give a solemn pledge on behalf of the Government that there will be no demand for the disclosure of accounts while the security situation remains as it is.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: I apologise for not being here earlier. I had some travel difficulties which prevented my being in my place at the proper time. I am sorry that I missed the Minister's speech. However, I have been given what I hope is a fairly good briefing on what he said by one of my colleagues.
As I look at today's Order Paper, including the business currently before the House, I cannot help reflecting that Ulster, like the remainder of the United Kingdom, is in danger of becoming a grossly over-managed society. We in this House tend to put our fingers into social pies and business pies which we would be far better advised to keep out of, and when we talk about company law, I suppose that it is better to make the point in relation to business.
It is elementary common sense that every burden which we place on business makes business less efficient and less competitive. I am sorry to say that both in Northern Ireland and in this part of the United Kingdom there is far too great a readiness to place unnecessary burdens on business, not just through company law but in many so-called social interests


where we never stop to assess the costs to the competitiveness and efficiency of British industry.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that company law has a two-pronged duty. First, in terms of public companies, it must protect the interests of the public who invest in public companies and see that their affairs are managed in an honest and straightforward way. However, it is not the job of compny law to decide how a company should be run.
The law's responsibility is considerably less than that in terms of the private company, where it is not a matter of the public at large investing but usually of a small group of people investing in a company with very special executive responsibilities rather than purely an investment interest.
In terms of the public, the duty of the law in respect of the private company is to protect them only in so far as the private company's liability is protected. Those who trade and do business with a private company have a right and an entitlement to know the worth of those with whom they are dealing. That far and no further goes the law in protecting the public interest. In terms of protecting the participants in or members of a private company, the main responsibility of the law is to see that minority interests are not abused.
Having set those two standards, when I look at this order I wonder whether we are not going too far. I agree with the Murray Committee that there is a very strong argument for saying that there should be a broad uniformity of law in this respect throughout the United Kingdom. But I emphasise the adjective "broad". It does not mean strict uniformity. The law should be shaped to protect and develop the interests of the companies and businesses according to the circumstances in which they operate.
Northern Ireland is not a typical economic or business area when compared with the United Kingdom as a whole. The preponderance of private company activity is very much greater proportionately than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The private company in Ulster operates in a very intimate society. It is almost a

fact that anyone whispering in confidence at one end of Northern Ireland will be heard at the far end of Northern Ireland. I am not in favour of facilitating the broadcasting of unnecessary information, but it seems that we might be about to do just that.
Our company structure is very important to the operation of the business world, especially that of the private listed company. If we push too many burdens on it, I suspect that many small businesses will put to one side the structure of the private limited company and seek to carry out their business in other forms, even in other forms of limited liability.
I am sorry that because we are legislating by Order in Council, we have no opportunity to study this subject, assess it and weigh it in the way that we should. Certainly we have no opportunity to move the amendments which I feel to be necessary. I appreciate that the Minister has undertaken that for the immediate future certain provisions will not be put into effect. But some of those provisions should never be put into effect, in my opinion. When shall we, the representatives of Northern Ireland, have an opportunity to see that they are not put into effect? Do we have to wait for another Government who take a different attitude to these matters?
This is the grave disadvantage of legislating by Order in Council because, having made these criticisms, I must concede that there is a lot of good in this order. There is a necessary bringing of our law into line with legislation in Great Britain. There is a necessary measure of consolidation. But that in no way excuses the abuse of certain articles requiring disclosure. Those can be very damaging in terms of the Northern Ireland business climate.
We have this compulsive and compelling requirement of the European Economic Community and, for a change, I have pleasure in noticing that it is less burdensome than the requirements of the United Kingdom law. I think that we could have left the more burdensome aspects of United Kingdom law until such time as it became absolutely necessary to consider them.
As for the publication of accounts and directors' reports, in a small company operating in an intimate society, what


benefit are we achieving when we say that private companies have to list and publish the names of all those employees who earn more than £10,000? There was a time, when this country was well governed, when £10,000 was worth a great deal. But £10,000 is no great sum today. If any level of income has to be disclosed, in my view £10,000 is much too low. If we are not careful, we shall be asking miners at the pit face to disclose their incomes in certain circumstances.
I see the logic behind the principle which requires disclosure of this kind. If payments are being made to employees, directors or anyone else in a company that threaten the financial stability of the company or the confidence of the business world in the company, it is a matter for concern. But is this the right approach? If we have to have disclosures on these lines, should not they be dependent on a certain percentage of resources being eaten up by this sort of activity rather than by fixing flat sums?
Why should the law compel any company, public or private, to disclose gifts to charities or even gifts to political parties? Let us remember that companies are entities under the law. They are entitled to have the same rights as the ordinary individual citizen who engages in business, subject to the conditions which are necessary for the safe operation of the companies.
It seems to me that we are seeking to embark on action in this respect that is not in the interests of the proper operation of companies but is being embarked upon for purely political purposes. I believe that any legal entity, be it a corporation or company, in the United Kingdom, within reason, subject to the agreement of its board, has a right to make whatever gifts it feels like making. It may be argued that these provisions have already been applied in Great Britain without any great kick-back. Whether or not there has been any difficulty in Great Britain, I know with some certainty that this legislation will have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland.
It was said a little earlier in the debate that difficulty could arise in Northern Ireland if the law becomes unreasonable and unnecessarily burdensome, because companies will be tempted to operate from a foreign neighbouring city in the

Irish Republic. That is a factor which needs to be weighed carefully in the interests of business in Northern Ireland.
I have one or two technical points to make in regard to Article 107. If the Department of Commerce has "good reason" it can give directions that a company should do this, that or the other. That is a most bureaucratic power to give. What does "good reason" mean? What right of appeal has the company if it disagrees with the Department's assessment of what is good reason? Should not a company have a right of appeal to somewhere or other?
Certainly that argument is true of Article 108 if it is not true of Article 107. Article 108 gives almost an arbitrary power to officials to enter company property and carry out searches. Those officials have only to go through the formality of appearing before a justice of the peace to obtain the issue of a warrant. With all respect to justices of the peace, I submit that they are not a competent body to assess the issues involved in such a search. I should feel much happier if the Department's officials and inspectors were required to appear before a much more competent court to justify the serious activity of searching business premises.
I shall not weary the House unduly with technical points, but there are many such points, regarding provisions which we have no opportunity to amend. The Minister may say there was plenty of opportunity for consultation long before the order came to the House. No doubt he will add that he has been ready to receive representations. We appreciate that such a process ameliorates the position, but it is no substitute for the fruitfulness of parliamentary debate and for the consultation and research which such debate makes necessary. One may try as hard as one can to carry out these matters through the process of consultation, but one finds it inadequate. As a Member of Parliament, I should not have to negotiate or consult behind the backs of my electorate. If I have something to say to the Government, this is the place for me to say it, and the people I represent should know what I am saying.
I concluded by saying that there is much good in this order, but once again it illustrates many of the deficiencies and shortcomings of direct rule, and through


it, harm will be done to the business community in Northern Ireland.

5.4 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to declare an interest. I happen to be an honorary director of a limited liability company. I do not receive anything for being in that capacity, apart from a lot of headaches and heartaches. I wish to contribute only briefly to this debate because I believe it would be wrong for this subject to be debated without my underlining the fears which have been expressed in this debate.
We are caught up in the iniquitous system of ruling part of the United Kingdom by Orders in Council. Other matters are due to come before the House today and the longer we debate any particular order, the more we cut time from the discussion of other orders. Therefore, we are today at a double disadvantage. First, there is a limitation as to time, and we also know that if we take more time dealing with one order, that will be taken from the amount of time available on a matter which is of concern to everybody in Northern Ireland which will arise later today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. There is no question of cutting time from one order as opposed to another. This order can run until 11.30 p.m. It is up to hon. Members to adjust their timing accordingly. After that, according to the Standing Orders, each order is allowed one-and-a-half hours of debate.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With geat respect, what you have just said to the House is correct, but what you have said of this order applies also to orders that will follow it. Therefore, it is possible for a subsequent order entered upon before 10 o'clock to occupy more than one-and-a-half-hours. In referring to that fact, surely the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was correct in saying, although it does not arise directly from the Standing Orders of the House, that extension of debate on this order may, and probably would, curtail debate on one of the subsequent orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but the question

of the allocation of time allowed for the first order is entirely for hon. Members. If they wish to spend the whole of their time dealing with the first order, that is up to them. However, we are not seeking to curtail discussion of the other orders.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I was aware of the point you made originally, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to make was that the matrimonial causes order, which comes up for discussion later, runs deep into the heart of the whole community in Northern Ireland. If that order had been called first today, we could have debated it until 11.30 p.m. These other orders would have taken one-and-a-half hours each. The point I was making was that the longer we spend discussing the order that is now before the House, the more we shall curtail discussion time on subsequent orders. If those orders are discussed after 11.30 p.m., we shall have one-and-a-half hours on each.
I wish to emphasise to the Minister that there are areas in Northern Ireland in relation to which one cannot make the law uniform with the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and we have heard strong arguments by Labour Members that Scotland must remain part of the United Kingdom, but Scotland contains different laws from those that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, I understand that different laws apply to Wales, although England and Wales are usually taken together.
I believe that in some matters we should have combined legislation which makes it easier for the House to deal with subjects relevant to the whole of the United Kingdom, but even in such Bills, special provisions are often made for different parts of the United Kingdom. We should not say that just because the rest of the United Kingdom has a law, Northern Ireland must also have it. The law in Northern Ireland might be better and it might be that the rest of the United Kingdom would be wise to conform to the law in Northern Ireland rather than vice versa. For example, we in Northern Ireland are streets ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in regard to our ombudsman because he can receive complaints from local authorities, which is not possible in the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the rest of the United


Kingdom should look at Northern Ireland not through the usual jaundiced eyes, but to see which provisions in Northern Ireland would be good for the rest of the United Kingdom.
This is a lengthy order. It includes 153 articles and seven fairly long schedules. It merits a real parliamentary debate including First and Second Readings and a Committee stage. I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) that the best way of considering such legislation is not by consultation before orders are laid. We are happy that the Minister takes time to consult and we appreciate some of the amendments that he has been able to concede to interested parties as a result of that consultation, but it is no substitute for proper parliamentary debate and the proper bringing of legislation before the House.
I suppose that we are fortunate that we are having these debates on a Tuesday. Usually, they are held on a Friday. I do not know whether it was feared that the cafeterias might run short of fish this Friday, but the fact that we are debating the orders today is a crumb of comfort to us. More and more undigested legislation affecting Northern Ireland is being pushed through the House and the time has come for us to underline this fact. Perhaps continual dripping may eventually wear away the flinty hearts of those who bring the legislation before the House.
I must make allowance for the fact that, I am told, this is the only way in which, under the law, Ministers can bring forward such proposals. I am not so sure about that, but that is what I am told when I correspond with Ministers.
I must make clear that companies in Northern Ireland have nothing to hide. I do not want it to go out from this House that companies in Northern Ireland are afraid of legislation. However, the Province is passing through a difficult time and I am glad that the Minister has told us that he will not activate certain matters because of the difficulties that he appreciates.
However, an outside body—the Common Market—can tell us how these businesses should be run, and if it intervenes, the Minister must abide by what the Common Market says. I do not think

that we should necessarily abide by what it says, but that is a matter for another debate.
We have an interesting proposition before the House. The Government have to admit that there are certain sensitive matters in the order which the Minister does not want to activate until he has the good will of the business community. I would rather that these matters were not activated at any time.
There are certain fears about this legislation and certain parts of it that we would like to delete, but that is not possible. As other hon. Members have said, there are good things in the order, and this is where Northern Ireland Members have to weigh up whether we should go all the way and divide the House and make our protest in that way or say that the good outweighs what we do not like and we shall therefore allow the order to go through without a Division.
That puts us in a difficult position. There are matters which come before us which are necessary to the community, but they sometimes include provisions with which I entirely disagree. I have to consider whether to make a protest and try to wipe out everything or to say that the good outweighs the bad and therefore I shall give the legislation tacit support. That is not a good way for any representative to have to work.
I line up with those who have pointed out the fears of the business community in Northern Ireland. I do not want companies to go south of the border rather than put themselves under the obligations of this legislation. I do not believe that the Minister wants that to happen. He wants to keep companies operating from their base in the Province. However, there are real fears and legitimate critcisms which the right hon. Gentleman must take on board.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The House will he grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation of the draft order. It is a most important order, running to 137 pages. For Great Britain or for the United Kingdom, such a measure would have involved the normal legislative procedures in each House. Because the order relates to Northern Ireland alone, there has been only a short debate in another place and there will be only a few hours


of debate in this House. There has been no possibility of amending the order in either House. This is a procedure to which the House has grown accustomed, but it is a procedure which is wholly unsatisfactory.
The Government in their explanatory memorandum have referred to the debt that is owed to Mr. Justice Murray and the members of his committee which reported on the company law of Northern Ireland in 1973. That report was presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) four and a half years ago. The committee was set up as long ago as 1969, before the introduction of direct rule, by the then Minister of Commerce, Mr. Roy Bradford. The order therefore represents, in a sense, the partial implementation of recommendations made by a committee set up nine years ago.
The order is of constitutional and economic importance. It is of constitutional importance because it brings the company law of Northern Ireland into virtual parity with that of Great Britain. It is of economic importance because we believe that, on balance, the provisions of the order will lead to a more efficient company structure in Northern Ireland. Therefore we support the principles lying behind the order.
We agree with the preamble in the Murray Report which said:
in the whole field of company law the uniformity principle is a sound one and that, as a general rule of policy, the law here on any particular topic should not differ from the law in Great Britain unless there is good ground or reason for making or leaving it different.
On the question of the privacy privilege as it relates to private companies in the Province, the Murray Committee said:
While we are recommending a change in the law we are quite satisfied that in view of the emergency conditions now prevailing in this province and their effect on trading in certain areas, it would be most undesirable to introduce that change until more settled conditions have returned, and we so recommend.
The Government have followed the advice of the Murray Committee, advice given nearly four years ago. Of course, the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved substantially over the past

four years. Nevertheless, as the Minister acknowledged, there are fears in Ulster that the requirement to file accounts and related information and to give details of directors' remuneration and all political and charitable contributions could help indentify industrial targets for a terrorist and could attach to leading business men the risk of kidnap or attack. Those fears may or may not be justified, but they exist. As they exist, and as they are genuinely felt by the key element of the population in Northern Ireland, I am sure that the Minister is right to follow the advice of Mr. Justice Murray.
The whole House is at one in stressing what is in many ways the normality of life in Northern Ireland. One of the most extraordinary features of the past decade is the extent to which the commercial and industrial life of the Province has been able to continue, despite the ordeal through which the people have passed.
Although we stress that there are excellent commercial and industrial prospects for investors in the Province, whether they are from within or without Great Britain and whether they are from within or without Northern Ireland, it is right that we should recognise that there is a case for deferring the introduction of the articles to which the Minister has referred.
When the Minister replies I hope that he will tell the House which articles will be suspended and will confirm that the Government have power under Article 1(1) to bring into operation different articles in the order at different times.
It has been argued that the whole structure of companies in Northern Ireland is very different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom and that separate considerations and separate laws should apply. I find myself in respectful disagreement with those arguments. There are slightly fewer than 10,000 companies on the register in Northern Ireland. Of those companies 67 per cent. have capital of less than £20,000 and 93 per cent. have fewer than 50 employees. It would be easy to find six counties in Great Britain where there was a similar pattern of company size, structure and employment.
The case for a special, separate law in Northern Ireland is no stronger than, for example, the case for a separate law


for Devon, Dumfriesshire, Cornwall, Cumberland, Shropshire and Westmorland. Those six counties have a structure of industry and agriculture that is in no way dissimilar from the six counties in Northern Ireland.
It has been argued that the proposed reform of company law in the Province will put Northern Ireland companies at a disadvantage compared with companies in the Republic, but trade between Great Britain and the Republic is substantially greater than trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I have never heard it argued seriously that United Kingdom companies are disadvantaged as a result of our company law when compared with companies in the Republic.
I turn to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). I am bound to say that in welcoming the order it is not necessary to agree that company law in Great Britain is perfect in every respect. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East when they both argue in favour of less onerous burdens being placed upon companies by Secretaries of State or Ministers of Commerce. I wish to reassure my hon. Friend that I am no friend of an extension of bureaucracy.
We welcome the strengthening of the powers of inspection by the Department of Commerce. However, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East was justified in pointing out that the powers contained in Articles 107 and 108 are precisely those that would normally have been probed most thoroughly in Committee if this measure had taken the form of a Bill. I agree that we would welcome a much clearer explanation—I make no criticism of the Minister—than we have been able to have so far about the circumstances in which the powers envisaged in Article 107 will be used.
Before many months are out the House will have before it further company legislation. That will depend in part upon the implementation of directives from the EEC. I confess that I share the hope of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the next Companies Bill to come before the House will refer to the United Kingdom as a whole, with only such minimal changes as those for

which there is an overwhelming case as regards Northern Ireland.
We welcome the order and we commend it to the House.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: First, I put on record how much I appreciate the valuable contributions made by hon. Members to the debate on this important order. Their contributions reflect the interest expressed in Northern Ireland during the consultation process when I received many communications, some of them for the order and some against.
Some of the arguments that have been advanced today against the order are in some respects similar to those that were advanced when the Great Britain Companies Bill 1967 was passing through the House. Some of these fears have not been borne out by events. I have no reason to believe that the position will not be the same in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members have raised a number of matters on this detailed and complex measure. I shall endeavour to reply to them. However, I am mindful of the pressure on time. I shall endeavour to get on and make progress as I know that the House wants to move on to other important matters.
The problems of the business community and security matters formed the theme running through the debate. The Murray Committee recommended that full disclosure should be introduced only in a more settled situation. I take all the points that have been wrapped around that theme by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others. I share their concern.
I am celebrating my fourth anniversary of being a Northern Ireland Minister this week. I have been around and I fully share the anxieties and concern that have been expressed. It is difficult to be certain of getting the correct answers. Do we permit terrorists to dictate our policy or do we take the risk that is envisaged in the order? I have received counter-submissions from responsible sources stating that terrorists do not need balance sheets and profit and loss accounts to know which company to attack, and that full company disclosure should take place immediately. It was interesting that most of the firms and


individuals who wrote to me used company paper, setting out all the directors' names and other information.
I was guided by the report of the Murray Committee. I consider that it got it right. It recommended disclosure but suggested a postponement until we are able to judge how the security situation is progressing, or until we are forced to disclose under the fourth EEC directive. I have taken that on board. The recommendation has been generally welcomed by the House and by the business community in Northern Ireland. It is not much good trying to bulldoze a measure of this sort through Parliament if we do not bring along those whom in general we are supposed to be bringing along.
It might have been thought before the order was considered that the percentage of private companies of the total number of companies in Northern Ireland was much greater than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that the same would apply to the number of small businesses in Northern Ireland and the number that they employ. I was not too surprised to discover that that was not the position.
However, I was surprised how close the figures were for Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I gave the figures in opening. The figures for businesses employing fewer than 50 workers in Northern Ireland are 93·2 per cent. compared with 93·4 per cent. in the rest of Great Britain. The employment totals show that here is another myth that we have probably produced ourselves. It has been suggested that the structure in Northern Ireland is totally different from that in the rest of Great Britain, but it is not.
I find the take-over question very interesting. I should not have thought that small businesses in Northern Ireland would be attractive take-over propositions. I consider that firms in Great Britain are more vulnerable to that kind of thing than firms in Northern Ireland. I know that take-overs occur throughout the United Kingdom. But I should have thought that the Irish Sea would cut off small businesses in Northern Ireland from the danger of take-overs by large firms in Great Britain. I have received counter-arguments in favour of take-overs, such as the better utilisation of

assets, the bringing in of new ideas and technology and so on.
During consultations, prior to laying the order, I was told that there would be changes in United Kingdom company law. I should not have moved this order today if another order or Bill were to be published tomorrow which would change the law. I have looked into the possibilities of changes in company law in Great Britain but have found no indications that such changes are likely to take place. If such changes were enacted at any time, this order would place Northern Ireland in an ideal position to make similar changes in its company law without too much difficulty.
I take on board the point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and his hon. Friends about the law in Great Britain. There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments. We could rehearse them on every order with which we are to deal this evening.
There was a point about competition from companies in the Republic of Ireland. My record shows that I have considered this matter very closely: I have been travelling round the world and living out a suitcase to such an extent that my good lady has sent me a twenty-fifth wedding anniversary card to the House of Commons to remind me of it; I sometimes wonder what is happening to me.
I shall look at this matter very closely. We do not want to chase any jobs south of the border. The easy reply would be to say that the position is no different in other EEC countries where there are wide divergences in requirements between neighbouring States, but I agree that our close proximity with the Republic of Ireland justifies more consideration.
We can only guess how full the Republic of Ireland's disclosure provisions will be. I understand that it will be only a matter of time before there will be pressure from the EEC to bring all member States into line with a uniform high standard of disclosure provisions. In my deliberations in Northern Ireland, no one raised or was fearful of that matter.
The order will put Northern Ireland on near parity with the rest of the United Kingdom until the EEC directive comes along. Many people have said that there is a lot of good in the order, especially


for minorities, shareholders and the people who work in small firms. There has been trouble in the past because such provisions have not operated in Northern Ireland. I have had to wrestle with many difficulties. I welcome these provisions on behalf of the minorities represented in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Gow: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell the House which articles in the order will be suspended in accordance with the undertaking that he gave earlier?

Mr. Concannon: I cannot reel them off just like that, but I promise to send the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PAYMENTS FOR DEBT)

5.34 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Payments for Debt (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
To put this short order in its context, I must first remind the House of the size and nature of the overall problem of public debt in Northern Ireland. Since 1975 debts for rent, rates, gas and electricity have grown to £28·2 million from an original figure of £14 million. The rent debt has continued to increase, but debt for electricity and gas has grown even faster. At its current level of almost £16 million, it is now the largest part of the public debt total.
The debt problem has its origins in a variety of circumstances. There was the so-called rents and rates strike of the early 1970s which perhaps helped to produce a certain attitude of mind towards public debt which has persisted; and the security situation, while vastly improved, means that it is not always possible to take physical action, such as disconnection of electricity or gas supplies. It is also a fact that domestic electricity and gas prices are higher in Northern Ireland than they are in Great Britain. It is important to appreciate, however, that this is far from being the full explanation. We have only to recall that public housing rents in Northern Ireland are among the lowest in the United Kingdom and that this has not prevented the rent debt from rising.
Wherever the balance of explanation may lie, the plain fact is that it is not possible to accept a situation in which fuel bills are not being paid and fuel debts are still mounting. I must emphasise that many of the debts are very large indeed in relation to the size of the household and could not have reached this level here in Great Britain as the consumer would have been disconnected long ago. Some households are careless about their consumption, because they are hoping to avoid payment indefinitely. These are the kind of people we have to try to reach. I must emphasise that the security situation makes it difficult in


many cases to disconnect those in debt, as would be done here in Great Britain, because disconnection involves possible danger to staff.
Naturally, we must expect the fuel industries themselves to do all they can, within the limits imposed on them, to tackle the problem in the nationally accepted way; but we have had to think very hard about alternative ways of helping the industries. The Government's proposals for dealing with this difficult situation were announced by my right hon. Friend in a statement published on 14th December last.
Before I go on to explain these proposals in detail, I should like to underline the nature of the problem by some examples. One example deals with a street of 34 small houses in Belfast. This first came to my notice when the residents complained that their gas supply had been unduly interrupted while necessary repairs were being carried out to a fault in the mains. A letter with various signatures arrived on my desk. After four years in Northern Ireland, I was satisfied that the gas department was doing everything possible in the circumstances but, because I noticed where the street was, I asked my officials to investigate the debt position. At the last count, of those 34 houses, no fewer than 29 were in debt to the Belfast Corporation to a total of £7,516—an average of £259 each. No fewer than 33 out of the 34 had electricity debts totalling £10,438—an average of £316 per household. The total average fuel debt was £544.

Mr. Gerald Fitt: The order is of great importance in Northern Ireland, no matter from which side of the political spectrum one views it. Therefore, is my right hon. Friend prepared to name that street? As a parliamentary representative—I am sure this goes for my parliamentary colleagues—I am not certain or aware of the geographical location of that street. I believe that it would be in the interest of all in Northern Ireland, particularly in the city of Belfast, if my right hon. Friend would name that street.

Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend has known me quite a long time. I hope that he is not suggesting there is any impropriety on my part in this matter.

Mr. Fitt: I am not suggesting that at all.

Mr. Concannon: These people wrote complaining about not having gas supplies and so on. I do not intend to broadcast the name of that street within the House. It would not be fair, because those people wrote to my Department.

Mr. Fitt: May we know the location?

Mr. Concannon: Let us not have any chit-chat about it here. If my hon. Friend cares to ask me about it behind the Chair later, I shall fill him in on the general location of the street.
I am explaining the kind of problem that we have run up against in Northern Ireland. The electricity service has made tremendous efforts recently to encourage the defaulters to pay off their debts by installing coin collecting devices in 14 houses. Three householders have been making use of the budget payments scheme. The gas department has also succeeded in getting some householders into its regular giro payments scheme. These householders co-operating with the fuel undertakings have nothing to fear about further Government measures so long as they continue their voluntary efforts, but it is significant that the residents of this street felt no embarrassment about complaining at the interruption in their gas supply when they were in heavy debt to the gas department.
Further examples will show that it is not only the poor who are in debt and who have to pay. An employed debtor from a respectable South Belfast suburb owed £600 for electricity. Within the last few days he was cut off, and on that same day the bill was paid in full and in cash.
A sales manager in the home sales business owed £850 for gas. He was taken to the enforcement of judgments office and ordered to pay current bills as they arose and £24 a month off the arrears. But the agreement was honoured for only a few months, and the man was taken back to the enforcement of judgments office where it was ordered that a slot meter should be installed, that he should pay £50 a month, and where a charge was put on his property to prevent it from being sold or transferred.
A self-employed business man owed over £600. The Payment of Debts Act


was used to attach £320 of the superannuated rights from his former public employment, while the enforcement of judgments office ordered him to pay £35 a month. These examples demonstrate that debt is not confined to the poor and that effective action is being taken against those who will not pay.

Mr. Tom Litterick: The Gas and Electricity Council has advised me that for the last year in England and Wales the outstanding debts were for the Electricity Council £500 million and for the Gas Council £229 million. That is a total of £729 million for England and Wales. Can the Minister tell the House how these combined figures compare with the information he has given us about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Concannon: They simply do not compare. I do not know from where my hon. Friend got his figures—

Mr. Litterick: From the Gas and Electricity Councils.

Mr. Concannon: The figures do not represent debts incurred by people not paying their way. They are not for gas or electricity consumed—

Mr. Litterick: They are.

Mr. Concannon: I can assure my hon. Friend that they are not. The only debt that is attributed to people not paying their bills to the CEGB in England is £5 million, and that figure basically covers the entire last quarter's payments. In Northern Ireland the debt to the Electricity Board is £12·5 million, and that does not take account of the last two quarters' payments. If we use the multiplier of 40 in relation to Northern Ireland to provide a comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom, that provides us with a figure for Northern Ireland of £500 million compared with £5 million for the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no comparison just as there is no comparison between local authority rents in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there was any such comparison we could consider this matter with greater sympathy. I can assure my hon. Friend that the figure for non-payment of gas bills for Great Britain is virtually nil. I think that my

hon. Friend is referring to non-payment of hire purchase and other factors.
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have checked how much is owing to the electricity boards in Great Britain. I have been given the figure of £5 million. I am told that that figure includes the last quarter's payments which the boards will get anyway. They tell me that the figure of debt incurred by people not paying for electricity used is minimal.

Mr. Litterick: Let me simply quote from the letter signed by the chairman of the Electricity Council. It says:
The value of aggregate outstanding debt…for electricity (i.e. consumption read in the year and work done)…was £499 million
I think that the Minister has an obligation either to explain clearly why the figures era not comparable or to make a comparison that makes sense.

Mr. Concannon: I do not come to a debate such as this without checking the comparisons. Debtors for rent in Northern Ireland number 41,000, and the proportion of debtors to tenants is one in five. For electricity the proportion is one in 10. For gas in the Belfast gas area it is one in four. This is the only explanation I can give by way of comparing Northern Ireland public debt with public debt in Great Britain.
I am talking about unpaid quarterly bills. The figure I gave of f12·5 million for electricity does not include the two last quarters not paid. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is the information I have from the CEGB, from the local councils, from the gas authorities and from other sources.
If I may now come back to the Government's proposals, the key element is that consumers should be given every assistance and encouragement to avoid getting into debt in the first place. The fuel undertakings already operate a variety of schemes to make it easier for consumers to meet their current bills. These include saving stamps, budget payment schemes and prepayment meters and coin operated collecting devices. The undertakings are being encouraged to continue to develop these schemes and to make their existence more widely known to the public.
These measures are also intended to help those who have fallen into arrears


with their payments. I am satisfied that the fuel undertakings are fully alive to the difficulties which face many poor families in this situation, but it is essential that arrears owed by consumers should be paid. The starting point in this process is an agreement by the consumer to enter into a voluntary arrangement with his electricity or gas supplier to pay off his debt over a period. Measures such as the coin collecting device and fuel stamps supplement voluntary arrangements by encouraging the saving habit and making it that much easier for the consumer to cope.
Both of these objectives—avoidance of debt and encouragement to catch up with arrears—will be greatly helped by intensified efforts by the fuel undertakings to ensure that individual accounts are not allowed to get out of hand in the first place. The undertakings are being encouraged to allocate more staff to this type of work so that the consumer in debt can expect individual and sympathetic treatment if he makes an attempt to clear his arrears.
Unfortunately, we still have to deal with those consumers who, for whatever reason, will not respond to this sympathetic approach. In this situation our first objective has been to improve the effectiveness of the judical channels through which particular debts may be pursued. The recent proposals for legislation to streamline the operations of the enforcement of judgments office should, if approved, enable judical enforcement of debt to play a fuller role in the recovery of fuel debts for those who are in employment.
For those who are not in employment and cannot be dealt with by the enforcement of judgments office we have the procedure which was first developed to assist in the recovery of rent and rate debts in Northern Ireland under which certain deductions can be made from social security benefits to which individual debtors are entitled—what has become known as the benefit allocation procedure.
As my right hon. Friend emphasised in his statement, the Government have decided, with the greatest reluctance, that the public gas and electricity undertakings should be able to explore this route to debt recovery when—and I stress this—all other procedures have failed. They

will be able to apply for the allocation of benefit from 1st October.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that this system will not be used to impose intolerable burdens on the poorer sections of the community. Before a fuel debtor is made subject to benefit allocation, the creditor body must make every effort to recover the debt by any of the conventional methods—including disconnection. There is a rigorous procedure to ensure that this has been done in every case. The amount deducted from benefit is sufficient to cover current consumption and the collection charge of 50p a week plus a contribution towards arrears is calculated according to a formula which sets a limit to the deduction so as to prevent excessive deductions from families in poor circumstances.
Once on benefit allocation any debtor can have his case reviewed by the creditor body with the aim of concluding a voluntary agreement. Failing this, an administrative review by the DHSS can reduce the amount of deductions if there is evidence of hardship, and there is a right of further appeal to a tribunal.
The benefits which may be made subject to allocation are supplementary benefits, unemployment benefit, retirement pension, sickness, invalidity and industrial injury benefits, widow's benefit and, in very exceptional cases, child benefit.
The appeals procedure is designed to minimise undue hardship and appears to have been working reasonably well. Debtors are informed about the procedures at the time they become subject to benefit allocation. We shall also be looking at the way in which the system as a whole—by which I mean such aspects as the formula used for determining deductions for arrears, the procedure for appeals and the scope for using other alternative methods of debt collection—is working when the benefit levels next come up for review in the autumn.
I emphasise these safeguards in view of the understandable anxiety amongst those with a special concern for the problems of the underprivileged that the system should not be used to create additional hardship. It is essential, none the less, that we use every reasonable means open to us to ensure that persons who have been deliberately withholding payments over a long period are pursued.
While I believe that this was a necessary background to the order before the House, the order itself is concerned only with the narrow point that debtors who make it necessary for the fuel undertakings to have recourse to the benefit allocation system should contribute to the costs of operating the system.

Mr. Ron Thomas: My hon. Friend has listed the benefits, or part of the benefits, that someone could lose if in debt with his electricity or gas bill. At the end of that list, he even mentioned child benefit. May I assume from that that the other benefit to which someone is entitled would be taken away and that if that was still not enough, then the child benefit could be taken away? It seems that we are creating a situation in which people will be in really desperate straits. Will my hon. Friend please explain why this is necessary in Northern Ireland, and only in terms of that Province?

Mr. Concannon: I said that it was only in very exceptional circumstances that the child benefit would be affected. I was explaining all the procedures that take place. There is an appeals procedure, and I assure my hon. Friend that it works.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? He has mentioned that deductions will be made from social security benefits with a view to recovering the debt. Is this practice carried out at present in the remainder of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Concannon: The problem in the rest of the United Kingdom is not the same as that which we have in Northern Ireland, as I have illustrated by giving figures. We have a different problem. I assure my hon. Friends that I was dealing with a constituency case of mine at 12 o'clock the other night. My constituent had not only had his gas supply turned off but people had broken into his house and taken his meter out of it. That was because he was three weeks late in paying a bill of £27. That is the difference between what can happen in my constituency and what happens in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: That cannot be done in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Concannon: It can be done. A few of us have only a handful of difficult cases in our constituencies. What happens is that we make arrangements for money to be paid directly to the body concerned.

Mr. Ron Thomas: With permission.

Mr. Concannon: Yes, with permission. That is the other point. When talking about stopping these benefits, we must remember that of these benefits, quite a bit is built in for fuel, rent, electricity and so on. Many of these people have paid nothing for 10 years. They have made one excuse or another. There was the orgina1 rent and rates strike. Then the excuse was internment. But I was there when internment ended. The only effect that that had on rent and rates arrears was to send up the debt further instead of ending it. We have a very difficult problem in Northern Ireland. We must look at the problem not only from the debtor's angle.

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that for the seventh or eighth time the Minister referred to rent and rates. So far as I can make out, the order has nothing to do with rent or rates. It refers to electricity charges. The Minister keeps bringing in aid, as it were, rent and rates, as if they have some great significance. I suggest that such remarks are not relevant and are not in order.

Mr. Concannon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpem): Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has pursued a point. It is not for the Chair to come to the defence of a Minister, but, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing that the Minister has so far contributed to the debate that is irrelevant.

Mr. Concannon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have thought that I was being particularly generous and going wide in what I was saying in order to help hon. Members. I have already explained that the order is before the House only to make possible a collection charge. The decision has already been taken to put gas and electricity on to the benefit allocation branch.


It was not specifically in the original orders that the collection charge should be possible. Therefore, this order is concerned with the very narrow point of whether we should have a collection charge for that, and not even what the collection charge should be. It is concerned only about the power to make a collection charge when the order comes into operation on 1st October.
Therefore, far from praying other things in aid—the highest debt in Northern Ireland now is for electricity and gas—I thought that I was doing the proper thing by the House by explaining the whole situation, instead of trying to keep to the narrow point whether we should have a collection charge.
I dislike the necessity to extend the benefit allocation system to fuel debtors. But there are many people in similar circumstances to the debtors who make sacrifices and order their priorities so as to be able to pay their bills. This is a very important point. Many times when people complain to me about this matter—and this is an attitude of mind that must have got around in Northern Ireland—they say "If they are not going to pay, we are not going to pay. Why should we pay?" That is what has has taken place. It involves not only the poor people, as I have tried to explain. It has gone right through the Province. It is not only on one side. It is not a problem of the minority in Northern Ireland. It is a problem of the majority there, as well.
We must consider the law-abiding people as well, people who make the sacrifices to pay their bills and make sure that the money goes where it should be going. People talk to me in the Tea Room about my being a Socialist Minister. Nowhere in my Socialist teaching was it said to make one a good Socialist if one did not pay one's rent, rates and gas and electricity bills.

Mr. Litterick: Then why does not my hon. Friend do this in regard to the English?

Mr. Concannon: I am in charge in Northern Ireland. I have a specific problem there. I assure my hon. Friend—we shall make sure that we get it right this evening—that this is a problem that

does not exist in Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester. I am told that the highest sum of money left outstanding to Liverpool is 9 per cent. That is on record. The figure for Northern Ireland is about 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. That is the difference in the problem. It is a difference of attitude of mind.
In Northern Ireland we do not have the powers that are available in the rest of Great Britain. My constituent was made to pay his bill because his gas supply was cut off. In Northern Ireland people cannot be made to pay because due to the security situation, we do not have the wherewithal to go and turn off gas and electricity supplies.
Where is the sense or reason in a man, once he has his electricity cut off, going down in a couple of hours and paying £500, £600 or £800 out of ready cash in his pocket? There is a different situation in Northern Ireland. We are considering also those who are orderly in their lives and who pay their debts as well as those who do not pay their way.
The community as a whole simply cannot be expected to tolerate a situation in which people can exempt themselves from their obligations. The best service which those who are critical of the benefit allocation system can render the debtor is to encourage him to use the voluntary methods of repayment which ensure that he never comes within the scope of benefit allocation at all. This is necessary legislation, and I commend the draft order to the House.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I welcome the order, and I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he presented it. It should be said at the outset that, even if it were possible to prove that there was irresponsibility and antisocial behaviour in Great Britain equivalent to that in Northern Ireland, that would not, in my view, justify his not taking the action which he is now proposing. This legislation is essential.

Mr. Litterick: Would the hon. Gentleman then think it justifiable for the State to take the same action in mainland Britain against everyone else?

Mr. McCusker: If circumstances pertained in Great Britain as pertain in Northern Ireland, I should welcome


action of this sort being taken. As the Minister said, this is a consequence of a developing attitude of mind. Many decent people, people who never had any debts, were sucked into the system. They saw it as a way of avoiding responsibility for a short time, but the debt got beyond them and, month after month and year after year, they have been faced with these debts, rising into thousands of pounds.
I deal with these people. They come to me, begging for a service to be provided. When one questions them, they admit that their rent debt is this and their electricity debt or their gas debt is that, and they say "We cannot get the treatment we deserve". One frequently tries to help such people by introducing a system which will enable them to reduce the debt and convince the various services that they are making an effort and should have the benefits to which they are entitled.
I am glad that the Minister described the other type of person who, in many instances, has incurred this debt. We are not, in the main, talking about the underprivileged section of the community in Northern Ireland. I know widows who put themselves in a very poor state in order to meet their obligations, who perhaps deprive themselves to keep their children fed and clothed while they meet their obligations in respect of gas, electricity and rent.
I know pensioners in similar circumstances. Frequently, they come to one moaning about the position they are in and asking for help, but they are paying their hills and meeting their responsibilities. On the other hand, one can come across a young family with a substantial household income, perhaps with both husband and wife working, and they are running their debt merrily along and making no contribution whatever.
It is important that we judge this matter on the basis that there are some people making an effort and making sacrifices while at the same time, unfortunately, there is a growing number not doing so. I do not want to hit the poor and underprivileged. I do not want to hit one-parent families, pensioners or others of that sort. But, equally, I do not want to discriminate against those people, setting categories for those who do their piece and the others who do not.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Gentleman portrays that imaginary family. Which is the particular benefit that he would stop for them?

Mr. McCusker: That would be a matter for the benefit allocation branch. In many instances, they will not be deprived of anything which they should have because the benefit taken from them may well be a benefit which has been given for these very purposes but they have refused to pay.

Mr. Litterick: In that instance?

Mr. McCusker: Not in that particular instance, perhaps, but there will certainly be others.

Mr. Litterick: What others, and what benefit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have these sedentary interruptions. I ask the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) not to reply to sedentary interjections.

Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am anxious to be clear on the matter being discussed. He says that benefits are deducted in this case and that, but I do not know of statutory benefits such as unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or injury benefit being deducted for any purpose whatever. It is done in relation to social security payments, and no one objects to that, but I am anxious to find out whether in Northern Ireland we are compulsorily deducting sums from statutory unemployment benefit, for example, to pay these bills, and whether, if we are, we should do the same in the rest of mainland Britain.

Mr. McCusker: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that, he had better ask the responsible Minister. Perhaps it should be applied in the rest of the United Kingdom. But we are concerned to tackle a genuine and growing problem in Northern Ireland, a problem which is generating irresponsibility, with the result that we are penalising one section of the same community as against another.
We must take whatever action we can doing it as humanely as possible, as the Minister has said. Every effort is being


made to help people to meet this debt. Scheme after scheme has been introduced Advisory offices are being opened to encourage people along to talk about their debt and means to enable them voluntarily to meet that debt.
No one will go into the streets of Northern Ireland tomorrow to cut off electricity or gas supplies. There has been a long process of consultation, and that consultation is continuing. But in three years the electricity debt has risen from f4·1 million to £12·5 million, and the gas debt has risen from £1·7 million to £3·5 million. Is the House prepared to say that we should wait another three years, seeing that level of escalation continue, and do nothing about it?
We welcome these efforts. We know from what the Minister said and from our own experience that the system will be used properly, judiciously and humanely. The sooner we help off the hook the majority of responsible people who have unfortunately got themselves into difficulty, the better.

6.8 p.m.

Miss Joan Maynard: I oppose the order.
The Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 is a vicious Act, brought in to deal with the political rent and rate strike of that time. I say that it is vicious because of the level of family poverty in Northern Ireland, and this order is, in effect, an extension of that Act. The level of unemployment in Northern Ireland is always higher than it is in Great Britain, where it is already too high, and in Northern Ireland it is particularly high among the Catholic community.
The order is about the collection of debts for electricity and gas. The people in Northern Ireland in debt for gas and electricity are in debt because of their poverty. That is the real reason for it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Miss Maynard: That is my information. Very few of them are now withholding payment for political reasons. I put this question to the Minister. Is the debt higher in Northern Ireland than it is in a similar deprived area in Great Britain?

Mr. Concannon: Yes.

Miss Maynard: I should like to have figures for that.

Mr. Concannon: In Belfast 35 per cent. of collectable income is outstanding. In Londonderry 34 per cent. of collectable income is outstanding. In Liverpool 9 per cent. of collectable income is outstanding, and in Birmingham 7 per cent. of collectable income is outstanding. These are differences which one can take from every town and city in Great Britain and put alongside the situation in Northern Ireland. It is a Northern Ireland problem.

Miss Maynard: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I believe that this order will push families already on the poverty line way below it.
I understand that it is proposed to make deductions from benefits which people receive from the State in order to pay their gas and electricity bills. This is already being done for rent. So it is just transferring money from one public body to another. This is a farce, and it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. People in Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics—working-class people in both communities—oppose the order.

Mr. Powell: No, they do not.

Miss Maynard: That is my information. Wages in Northern Ireland are lower than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. Fuel costs are higher. Working people in Northern Ireland have great difficulty in paying their electricity bills.

Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Lady prepared to advocate that those who do pay their way in Northern Ireland should now not pay their way?

Miss Maynard: Obviously I am not advocating that. The same argument is produced over here when we run into this problem. That is my next point— that many people in Great Britain have great difficulty particularly in paying their electricity bills. That has been acknowledged in the subsidy that we give people on supplementary benefit to help them to pay their accounts.
The order will mean that fewer people will be able to keep warm next winter.


Instead of bringing in a penal order, we should do something about unemployment, here and in Northern Ireland. In particular, we should deal with the political and economic problems instead of pressing more heavily on people m Northern Ireland who already face great difficulties. That is the way to tackle the matter—not with a penal order.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: One must try hard to avoid gloating when saying "I told you so". Unhappily, when the Government three years ago relaxed the regulations on benefit allocation, we firmly warned them that there would be an enormous escalation in the public debt. I get no satisfaction from finding that to be the case.
I do not like the order, but I do not see the alternative. It is the duty of Government and Parliament to deal with a difficult situation which can affect not just the economic but the social stability of the community. The Minister rightly said that part of this escalation has happened because ordinary law-abiding folk have said, "If so-and-so can get away with not paying his electricity and gas bills, why should I pay mine?" There has been a spread of anarchy and lawlessness, and I see no other way of coping with it.
This is very much a last resort procedure. I have constituents with this problem and I have been more than impressed by the sympathy and help extended by the electricity and gas boards. They could not be more understanding or generous. I am further gratified that the Minister should say that, before resorting to benefit allocation, they will follow the normal course of debt collection, and that the judicial procedures are being approved. Some of us have not been satisfied with the working of the enforcement of judgments office and we are happy to hear that it will be improved.
There is a principle here that I do not like and we must guard against its extension. This is not the normal way of collecting debts, but this is an exceptional situation which affects the health—moral, legal and in every other way—of the whole community. I know that the officials concerned will show the same consideration in the allocation of benefit

as the supplying public utilities have shown in the collection of debt. The problem has now reached a level about which none of us can feel complacent. I support the order.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: We are now discussing yet another piece of emergency legislation. Throughout the existence of the Northern Ireland State, legislation has been passed which it was alleged would last only six months or a year or two. On the introduction of the Special Powers Act 1922 it was said that it would be on the statute book for a year. It was renewed in 1923, 1924 and 1925. Ultimately, it was on the statute book until 1972, when the Conservative Government took over the running of the Northern Ireland State. That Government then abolished the Act and introduced the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. The Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act is another example of emergency legislation.
After a considerable section of the Northern Ireland community withdrew their consent in 1970, and particularly on the introduction of internment, when most of the minority representatives refused to attend the then Northern Ireland House of Commons, a Unionist cabal met in Stormont. They put on the statute book of Northern Ireland the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland). No one can tell me otherwise. I freely subscribe to the belief that that was the political act of a Unionist ascendancy Parliament directed against the minority and their political representatives.
The payments strike was in retaliation for the introduction of internment and related solely to rent and rates. I myself did not pay rates at that time and I made no apology for not doing so. When the last internee was released from internment, I began to pay my rates. That is what every member of the SDLP advised those in that strike to do. When the last internee was released, there was no longer any political reason to withhold those payments.
Perhaps it is not fair to do as the Minister did and discuss Northern Ireland cities—we do not have too many—by comparison with other cities in the


United Kingdom. Putting aside our political travail, differences and divisions, there is also a great social problem in Northern Ireland which does not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
The Minister will agree that earnings in Northern Ireland are only 70 or 75 per cent. of the level in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Concannon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fitt: I notice that my right hon. Friend dissents from what I have said. I repeat—earnings in Northern Ireland are only 70 or 75 per cent. of the level in other regions of the United Kingdom. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is by far the heaviest not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe. As I said in a recent debate, in my constituency, 10,000 of my electorate of 61,000 are unemployed. That gives some idea of the problem.
I agree that some people did not pay their public debts because of political reasons, because they disagreed with internment. But there are people in Northern Ireland now, particularly in my constituency, who cannot afford to pay the high rates for electricity and gas that they need for their everyday lives. I know that my right hon. Friend will say that rebates of 5, 10 and recently 40 per cent. have been granted, and I accept that the Government have been generous. A Conservative Government might not perhaps have been so generous. I accept that the Labour Government have tried their best in the present financial climate to ease the problem.
The majority of the debt owed to the gas and electricity undertakings in Northern Ireland is owed not on account of political considerations, not because people say "Others are not paying and therefore we will not pay", but because the people are living below the poverty line. They do not have the financial capability to pay the debts.
I recognise that a minority of people, for political reasons, refuse to pay their legitimate debts, and they are in effect challenging the Government. They are asking how the security forces can cut off the supply of gas or electricity in the block of flats in which they live. They know that it would be impossible for the

security forces to do that. To those people I give no support. I do not believe that any political reason exists to justify the non-payment of just electricity and gas accounts. I am concerned about the many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who cannot afford to pay their gas, electricity and rent accounts.
Two years ago when a similar order was debated in the House I wrote to many Ministers asking what were the rent arrears in Hull, Coventry, Birmingham, Liverpool, Swansea and other major cities. I received letters from the Ministries and from the Table Office telling me that I was not allowed to ask these questions because this was a Northern Ireland problem. However, one Minister replied, and the figures he gave to me proved that many people in the cities I have mentioned were in considerable debt to the local authorities.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said yesterday that the electricity or gas in the home of one of his constituents was disconnected because his constituent owed £27. I certainly would not feel happy if such drastic action were taken against one of my constituents whose gas or electricity account for £27 had been outstanding for three weeks. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is wrong. If he does not, many people in Northern Ireland will feel that they will get very little sympathy from him.

Mr. Concannon: I do not think I said that. I was pointing out the difference between what happens with our constituents and what happens in Northern Ireland. There is a way to get people to pay bills which is not afforded to the gas and electricity boards in Northern Ireland. The constituent concerned had his gas supply restored the following morning. I was pointing out that weapons were available to the gas and electricity boards in Great Britain which are not available to the rest of the United Kingdom. I am waiting for my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to tell me what I am to say to his constituents who are paying their way. Am I to tell them that my hon. Friend is inciting them not to pay their way?

Mr. Fitt: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend was successful in his representations to have the supply restored the next morning. Had it been


otherwise, I should have been overcome with emotion. I appreciate the public relations effort that has gone into this.
I am the first to admit that a minority of people in Northern Ireland who support one or other of the political solutions say that they will not pay their rent, rates and gas and electricity bills in the forlorn belief that by taking this action they will be able to bring about political change. I am concerned not with political or constitutional problems but with the poverty and the social deprivation that exists in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend said that rents in Northern Ireland were lower than they are m the rest of the United Kingdom. They are, but he and his hon. Friends are quickly bringing them up to the level of other parts of the United Kingdom. In doing so, I hope he will take steps to reduce the number of unemployed in Northern Ireland to the level which exists in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I recognise that some means must be found to gather into the net the small number of people who for political or anarchistic reasons refuse to pay their public debts. But most of those people are in default because they just do not know how to make ends meet. They cannot afford to rear their families. We know that supplementary benefit is based on the poverty line. How many people in Northern Ireland receive family income supplement? Those who do are working for a wage which brings in less than they would receive if they were on supplementary benefit. The number of people in Northern Ireland who work for a wage which is less than the amount they would receive in supplement benefit is far higher than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom.
How many of those people are in debt to the electricity and gas undertakings? How many owe rent to the Housing Executive? There is a violent contradiction in terms. There are working people who do not want to become a liability to the social security services yet who are receiving less in wages than they would receive if they applied for social security help. They are being helped by family income supplement, yet they find that they cannot pay their gas or electricity bills or their rent. Now we are told that this order will take this assistance from them.

Mr. Concannon: I hope that the lion. Member is not suggesting that family income supplement in Northern Ireland is not paying gas and electricity bills or rents. What will the hon. Member say to those who are on family income supplement and are paying their way? What will he say when those who do not make any attempt to get rid of the debt eventually make it necessary for the others to pay more?

Mr. Fitt: It is easy to criticise, particularly for someone representing a constituency as large as mine, with 10,000 unemployed and a lot of poverty. Perhaps I should try to give some answers. I have not got them all and I am certain that the Minister does not have them all either. I do not know what the answer is. Rather than have a system in which a civil servant picks out a certain person, some system ought to be devised which takes into account individual circumstances more readily. I know that my right hon. Friend has said that this will be done. Yesterday afternoon, at my surgery, while my constituents were still present, I rang the electricity authority and talked to those involved. I was able to get the amounts reduced by £1·30 and £2. Had those people not been able to come to me they might have been saddled with extra debt.

Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what arguments he put forward in the power-sharing Executive in April 1974 when his colleague Mr. Austin Currie, a member of the SDLP, opposed a charge of 50p per week on people who were not paying their rents in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Fitt: I would have gone home greatly disappointed if I had not been asked that question. I was sure that I would be asked that, if not by hon. Members on the Unionist Bench, then by my right hon. Friend. It has to be remembered that the power-sharing Executive lasted from 1st January 1974 until 25th May 1974. We said that with the ending of internment people should begin to pay their just and legitimate debts. However, the supporters of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and his colleagues took illegitimate and illegal action. Illegal strikes took place, with support from hon. Members of this House. There were illegal


actions involving the para-military associations and the Executive was brought to an end.

Mr. McCusker: What did the hon. Member do then?

Mr. Fitt: What would I do now? If I were faced with the same set of circumstances, I cannot say. I do not give hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. I am certain that if the Executive had not been brought tumbling to the ground as a result of the illegal activities of the para-military associations, ably supported by Unionist Members, we would have arrived at an equitable political solution. It may be that Northern Ireland Ministers in the power-sharing Executive would have taken a more humane and compassionate view. I do not know.

Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether, if the power-sharing Executive had continued, he believes that social security payments would have been increased to the extent that people could have afforded things now any more than they could then?

Mr. Fitt: I cannot say. I do not know what may or may not have happened. All I can say is that, if the Executive had been allowed to continue, it is my view that there would have been less political turmoil. Certainly, with the continuation of the Executive, we would have been part and parcel of the United Kingdom. There was no question of constitutional change. I believe that the atmosphere would have been changed in the years between 1974 and 1978. There would have been another election had the Executive been allowed to continue.
This order offends against Socialist principles. It calls out for working class opposition. If I claim in this House that those whom I represent are citizens of the United Kingdom, I must say that the order ought to be applicable in every constituency throughout the United Kingdom. I do not want this order to be applicable in every constituency in the United Kingdom. I do not want it to be applicable in the 12 constituencies in Northern Ireland. The order offends every principle I have been brought up to believe in. That is why it is my intention to vote against it tonight.

6.37 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to say a word on behalf of the working-class people of Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that the working-class people of Northern Ireland wish to avoid shouldering their responsibilities. I have far more faith and confidence in the working-class people of Norhern Ireland, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. than to believe that they are not prepared to shoulder their bounden responsibilities. Many of my constituents have a hard fight to make ends meet. Many are dedicated people, prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to pay their legitimate debts. Because of some of the extraneous matters that have been referred to today, I fear that we are not getting to the heart of the situation.
What is the heart of the situation in Northern Ireland? Particular attitudes have been struck in Northern Ireland by various sections of the community. I remind the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that he did not leave the Stormont Parliament because of internment. He left it because he demanded an inquiry into an incident in Londonderry which involved the responsibility of this House and not Stormont. It was a Minister answering at the Dispatch Box in this House who refused that inquiry to the representatives to the minority community. It had nothing to do with Stormont.
My attitude towards internment is well known. It differed from that of many other representatives of the majority population. The deputy leader of the SDLP, Mr. Hume, put out a leaflet in which he told his supporters that they would never have to pay. Those were his own words. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said publicly today that he did not pay his rates. He said that he commenced paying them at a later stage. I am sure that he paid the back rates because he would be obliged to do so. However, it is interesting that by what he has said we have discovered that he was a Minister of the Crown in the Executive of Northern Ireland, yet he refused to pay legitimate rates which he should have paid.
Such incidents have reflected on the Protestant population. I deplore that. There is a loosening of ethical values in


Northern Ireland. People feel that they can do what they like and get away with it. I deplore the fact that Protestant people in my constituency say to me "Oh well, the Roman Catholic cornmunity is not paying its rates; we shall not pay ours." I have told them that the evil day will come when they will have to pay. There is common agreement among us all that the Housing Executive is an obnoxious body to many of its tenants. When necessary repairs are not carried out, people in Northern Ireland say "I will withhold my rent". We all know that that is true. I have told such people "You may withhold your rent, but remember the day will come when you will have to pay every penny."
Therefore, it is no answer to make a protest in this manner. The system of saying "I will not pay my legitimate debts" has spread to a population which did not strike the same political attitude. What worries me about this order is that today that population is saying "One section is not paying; why should we pay?".
The Minister said that for security reasons certain things could not be done in certain areas. We all know that. We realise what is happening in certain areas, areas where the Army and the police are not in total control. They go in and out, but they are not in total control. Yet in the other areas, where they are in total control, the people who do not pay get the heavy end of the stick.
There have been people in Ballymena who have not paid their electricity bills. But there was no sympathy for them. They were cut off. In one week so many people came to see me that the mayor and myself had to see the head of the electricity board and make a plea on their behalf because they were being cut off continually. It would be terrible if, because of the security situation, a debtor in one area was more severely dealt with than a debtor in another. That is what the Minister needs to avoid. The Minister faces a very difficult problem.
Nearly every hon. Member for Northern Ireland attends local tribunals. We all appear and plead for people who cannot make ends meet. There are legitimate cases as well as cases about which one has doubts, but at least one goes and does one's bit for those people. I should

point out that in the allocation of social security so much is allocated for electricity and so much for gas. Some people are taking that money which is given to them for a specific purpose and using it for other purposes. No one in this House can justify that. That money was paid for electricity and gas.
In the interests of the whole community surely the Government are entitled to say "If you do not pay the money which we give you for gas and electricity, we shall deduct that money so that we can pay for your gas and electricity". These are the facts of the situation. This is an important point which needs to be emphasised. I personally do not think that the Minister wants to carry a crusade against poor people who cannot make ends meet.
I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West about family income supplement. That needs to be looked at. But I have discovered that people who work and get FIS do pay. If they were scroungers, they would not work for the rate of pay given in Northern Ireland. Those people who work for a rate which falls below the poverty line are to be commended because they are prepared to work and draw FIS rather than sit at home. But there are people in Norhern Ireland who will not work, who will draw the benefits, yet withhold payment of gas and electricity bills—the very things for which benefit is given. That is the main point which has to be dealt with.
We all know that Northern Ireland has a cancer of unemployment. Unemployment is a terrible scourge, especially for young school leavers to whom one cannot offer any hope. It is terrible for a young school leaver to discover that there is no prospect of employment. Unemployment is a cancer in the community. In addition, there the rate which is given for jobs in Northern Ireland is less than the rate in Great Britain. The Minister must know that. There are skilled craftsmen in Northern Ireland who are not receiving the same rate of pay which they would receive in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Those are facts. But even with those facts I believe that the whole community in Northern Ireland wants to shoulder its responsibility. Every one of us has a responsibility to say to the community in


Northern Ireland "You must shoulder your responsibility and you must pay". If they are not able to pay all to whom they are in debt, then arrangements can be made. I am not sure about the gas undertaking, but I believe that the Minister and the electricity authority have made arrangements whereby a small payment can be made.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West about the question of representations. I have had to make representations about too much being taken off certain allocations. This needs to be looked at. Often people say that they could pay so much a week. I have told them "No, you could not, because if you take on that undertaking you are putting a millstone around your neck and you will have to shoulder it. It is better to pay a small amount and be able to pay it weekly than to take on a larger amount."
These are matters on which I am sure the Minister is prepared to meet us. Unfortunately, this order is necessary. I regret the circumstances, but let us do away with the circumstances and we can then get rid of the order. It does not need to be a long measure. If everyone shoulders his responsibility and starts paying, however little, then the Minister can say "We have no further need for this legislation". That would be the happy solution to this problem.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I want to make only one or two brief points, because a good deal of the ground has been covered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) dealt in considerable depth with the level of unemployment and poverty in Northern Ireland. This is one of the major reasons why so many people find it extremely difficult to meet the cost of fuel. Goodness knows, enough people in my own constituency—which is relatively prosperous compared with Northern Ireland—find it extremely difficult to meet their fuel bills.
I am opposed to this order because, in my view, it is discriminatory on two main bases. First, it discriminates in terms of Northern Ireland. Secondly, ipso facto it must discriminate against the under-

privileged since it is the under-privileged who receive the benefits listed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
It was suggested that there were families receiving considerable wages who were refusing to pay their fuel bills. But they would not be receiving any of the benefits except child benefit, possibly, and I shall come to that in a moment. But it is clear that the benefits listed by my right hon. Friend go only to those who are unemployed or incapacitated in some way so that they receive invalidity benefit or to those who are receiving supplementary benefit because they have been unemployed for more than 12 months or for some other closely related reason.
Let us be clear about the position in the rest of the United Kingdom. A person who is receiving supplementary benefit, and only supplementary benefit, can ask—it must be with his agreement—to have so much per week deducted from his supplementary benefit to pay towards an overdue electricity account or for his current consumption. That cannot happen if the person is on unemployment benefit. Indeed, I had a very difficult problem in my own constituency where I had to wait two or three weeks until the person concerned went on supplementary benefit in order for this arrangement to be made. But it is done only as a voluntary arrangement. There is no way in the rest of the United Kingdom that part of a person's unemployment pay or invalidity benefit can be deducted.
If we were to accept this orde, we would be cutting across a basic principle of the benefit system. I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will comment on this. Unemployment pay is part of the social benefit system to which we all contribute and are guaranteed certain rights. I do not know of any provision in that legislation which says that anyone who does not pay his electricity bill will not get his full unemployment benefit entitlement or invalidity benefit entitlement. I know that it can apply to supplementary benefit. But supplementary benefit is in a quite specific category. I can imagine a situation where we change all the other social legislation since Beveridge or Lloyd George but say to a person "If you owe an electricity or gas bill, you will not get your full unemployment benefit".
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of the importance of not having different debtors treated differently in different areas. But they are treated differently. My right hon. Friend suggested that in his area the representatives of an authority would come along at midnight and, because a consumer owed £27, cut off his supply of gas. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the South-West Gas Board would not do that. I hope that no other nationalised industry with any kind of social feeling or sensitivity would do that. It seems that my right hon. Friend has a pretty tough gas board in his area.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also said that those in receipt of supplementary benefit were being paid this money. Let us be clear about it. Included in supplementary benefit is a needs allowance which presumably comprises contributions for all kinds of needs. In certain circumstances, there is also a special payment for heating. I am prepared to accept that there are those who get that special payment for heating. However, I do not follow the logic of the hon. Member's argument that those who get simply the needs allowance ipso facto get something for heating and therefore are reneging in not paying their fuel bills. On that basis, if someone had his electricity and gas cut off, he would have his needs allowance reduced, and I do not think that that has ever been suggested.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Usually at tribunal hearings we are supplied with notices giving the breakdown of the needs grant, with so much for food, and so on. That is what has happened in every case in which I have appeared.

Mr. Thomas: I have never seen the needs allowance broken down in that way. But the logic of what the hon. Member is suggesting is that, if anyone had his electricity cut off, he ought to have a lower needs allowance, and I have never heard that suggested.
The other aspect of this order which alarms me is that if it is not to deal with the under-privileged—those who are in receipt of invalidity, unemployment and supplementary benefit—we have this important change of bringing in child benefit. As I understood it, the philosophy behind child benefit was to give mothers

an income of their own. Now there is the threat that if the wage earner, the husband, refuses to pay for his gas and electricity, his wife will have deductions made from her child benefit, which is the only sort of income which she is likely to have to look after her children. I find that quite indefensible.
There might be a very good income coming into the household. There might be a couple of children. The husband might be earning £100 a week or even as much as a Member of Parliament but refusing to pay for the household's consumption of electricity or gas. In the benefits listed by my right hon. Friend, the only one through which it would be possible to get at such a family would be the child benefit. But that would be completely against the principle laid down by this House that child benefit is a distinct income for the mother. In such a case I would find it indefensible if the mother lost her child benefit.
In this part of the United Kingdom we have arrangements about deductions from supplementary benefit, and usually we link these with pre-payment meters. I have not heard any mention of pre-payment meters in the Northern Ireland context. It may be that because of the security situation it is impossible to put in prepayment meters. But if someone has a pre-payment meter he gets no fuel if he does not pay.
My right hon. Friend threw out some very rough figures. He referred to 35 per cent. of collectable income. I wish that he would tell us exactly what that means. Some hon. Members have suggested that the position is so difficult in certain areas that I do not know how my right hon. Friend arrives at this figure. In view of all the power which I am told operates among these groups, the way that they behave and how difficult it would be to take any action to deal with the situation, I cannot imagine how the meter readers ever get into premises to read the meters and deduce how much gas or electricity has been used.
I am opposed to this order because it discriminates against part of the United Kingdom and, above all else, because it it discriminates against the underprivileged community in a part of the United Kingdom where there is a much higher level of unemployment and poverty


than elsewhere. Given the opportunity, therefore, I shall vote against the order.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: I wish to congratulate the Minister on bringing this order before the House. I was sad that debates on these matters at one time developed into arguments about whether problems were Roman Catholic or Protestant. Thank goodness we have got away from that idea in some respects. Furthermore, in debates on Northern Ireland there is usually much talk of "the minority" and "the majority". On this occasion the Minister of State has brought forward this order which deals not with minorities or majorities but with debts.
People in Northern Ireland are often accused of being partial, but I am sure that the Minister's Labour colleagues would not accuse the Minister of State of being partial to a certain section of the community in Northern Ireland. I wish to impress on Labour Members that the problem does not only affect the working class. It has been suggested by some Labour Members that members of the working class were suffering the most.
I represent an area that comprises mainly working-class people. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) often speaks of the high unemployment in his constituency. I represent North Belfast where the percentage of unemployment is as high as it is in the area of West Belfast.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman said that the figure of unemployment in his constituency is as high as it is in West Belfast. The hon. Gentleman should be quite certain of his facts. I reached my conclusion after tabling a series of Questions to the appropriate Ministers. I asked for figures of those who sign on at the relevant social security offices in Falls Road, Shankill Road and Corporation Street. I was given the exact numbers. I am confident that the total number of people who are unemployed in North Belfast is nowhere near the figure of 10,000 which we are experiencing in West Belfast. The hon. Gentleman can use his own methods of obtaining these answers from the Minister.

Mr. Carson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of tabling Questions, but he has

not given the figures. I made clear to the House that I was talking in percentage terms. I am prepared to discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman either in the Chamber or outside. He should know the situation in North Belfast and should sympathise. He is a local councillor for North Belfast, and he knows that many of his constituents are unemployed.
We are in this debate dealing with rents and electricity, gas and rate charges. I was brought up in a large working class family. My father was a farm labourer, and on many occasions my mother and father had to budget and make great sacrifices to pay their bills. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland we have people who are not prepared to budget or to make sacrifices for their children and for the home and comforts of their family. As a man who was brought up in a working-class family and who works among working-class people in his constituency, I can give evidence of a great deal of misuse of family benefits. If time permitted, I could give proof of cases in which family benefits are abused rather than used by many parents in Northern Ireland.
I congratulate the Minister of State on his four years of service in Northern Ireland. There is no Minister who is better qualified than the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the problems of Northern Ireland, because he has gone through the mill and he knows what he is talking about. It does not matter to me what side of the fence a street finds itself. The hon. Member for Belfast, West tried to discover whether the street was comprised of Catholics or Protestants. That should not concern this House, and I do not think it concerns the Minister.

Mr. Fitt: I did not say that.

Mr. Carson: I was appalled to hear the Minister say that there were debts amounting to £7,000 for gas in one street with 34 houses and large debts incurred in electricity charges. In the recovery of debts many schemes have been laid before this House and many opportunities have been given to people in Northern Ireland to pay their debts. Unfortunately, the people of Northern Ireland were given a bad lead by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has certain regrets for the


step that he and his party took in advising people not to pay their debts. They were told "You will never be asked to pay those debts". I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took the step of paying his own rates. I believe that many of his constituents would have been wise to follow the example set by the hon. Gentleman and to have paid their rent, rates, electricity and gas bills.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has given many opportunities to the people of Northern Ireland to talk to the district managers. Tenants have been given an opportunity to sign a form to pay off their rent arrears. Many people in Northern Ireland did not avail themselves of this opportunity. Scheme after scheme has been laid by Ministers to help those who are in debt and to come to terms with the Housing Executive, as well as with the electricity and gas authorities and the Belfast City Council. However, many people in Northern Ireland have ignored that chance and have involved themselves in a great deal of debt.
We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that Austin Currie made a very good start when he became a member of the power-sharing Executive by putting a 50p surcharge on the rents in an effort to collect the money that was held back as part of the rent and rate strike. That did not work. But the hon. Member for Belfast, West seeks to oppose this order brought in by the United Kingdom Government. The Government have already given assistance in the payment of electricity and gas hills and have introduced other schemes to try to help the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not say how he voted on these matters. He knows full well that he supported Austin Currie in the imposition of the 50p surcharge in seeking to make poor, working-class people in Northern Ireland pay more in rent.

Mr. Fitt: When the hon. Gentleman talks about opposing the Government, he should look into his own back yard and recall the number of occasions when he and his colleagues have opposed this Government and tried to bring about their defeat. That applies particularly to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who, in collusion with the Conservative Party, particularly its Right wing, has voted time and again to try to

bring to an end the tenure of this Government. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say in this debate on Northern Ireland, it will not bring about the defeat of the Labour Government. Let not the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made one speech.

Mr. Carson: The hon. Member for Belfast, West is trying to escape from the agonising problem he has caused. A number of his former colleagues have said that they regret what was done when that surcharge was placed on the working-class people in Northern Ireland.
I wish to make clear that we support the Minister of State on this order in seeking to take every possible step to try to reduce the debt burden in Northern Ireland. We should all be seeking to encourage the people of Northern Ireland to pay their debts. I have in my constituency many hard-working people who make many sacrifices. I am glad to see that the Minister with responsibility for housing is here. He knows that many people in Northern Ireland have made sacrifices to pay their way. Shipyard workers, technical workers at the Belfast City Council, aircraft workers and many others in working-class districts have sacrified much to try to pay their debts.
However, many of the people in Northern Ireland who owe so much to the various Departments abuse their child benefits, have two cars standing outside their homes, have two colour televisions and find time to go to illegal clubs and to bingo halls where they use the child benefits.

Mr. Litterick: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest to the House how many recipients of supplementary benefit are doing all those things and have all those things to which he has referred?

Mr. Carson: I do not have figures with me, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, many people on supplementary benefit are paying their rents, electricity bills and the debts they owe to various Departments in Northern Ireland. I support the Minister in bringing forward this order and I hope that it will be successful in reducing the vast


debts that are owing in Northern Ireland.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: The debate is not or should not be about whether people should pay their debts. It is about giving the Northern Ireland administration the authority to charge people who are in debt to the electricity and gas boards in respect of the enforced collection of arrears of gas and electricity charges. All this hokum about whether people should or should not pay their bills is irrelevant.
One of the remarkable aspects of the debate on this order, as distinct from the debate on the companies order, is that there have been no complaints from the Opposition Benches that there is an inconsistency between the spirit and principle involved in this order and the spirit and principle of the laws applied in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the debate on the companies order, virtually every speaker on the Opposition Benches said that it was unfortunate that we could not have consistency in company law between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland and that the sooner we could have the same laws applying in Ulster and in mainland Britain, the better. But there has been not a whisper of that in this debate. One cannot help but wonder why, unless one has been listening carefully to what has been a rerun of a familiar Tory attitude to the poor, namely, that the poor are, as the right hon Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has said more than once, in some way morally degenerate and in need of moral regeneration. Hon. Members opposite have been rehearsing that philosophy over and over again—unwittingly, I think, because they thought that they were talking about something else.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but three speakers in the last debate pointed out that they did not think that the law in Northern Ireland should be exactly the same as that in the rest of the United Kingdom. They pointed out that in Scotland there are laws that are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom and that this could hold good in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I had to leave the Chamber for a while.
The Minister's argument hinges on a simple statement of belief about the people of Northern Ireland. He made one crystallising, characterising remark when he said of the people of Northern Ireland that their attitude of mind is different—presumably from that of the generality of people in mainland Britain. He was saying that special measures had to be taken by the State to collect debts from the people of Northern Ireland because their attitude of mind is different.
The Minister went on to cite many alleged figures to prove that the attitude of mind of people of Northern Ireland is different from that of the generality of people in mainland Britain. I have Information that relates to the same facts that the Minister was citing. The burden of his factual message to the House was that there is a lot more public debt in Northern Ireland than in mainland Britain and that this proves a different attitude of mind.
Other speakers from this side of the House have indicated that there are objective reasons for the levels of debt in Northern Ireland being higher than those in the rest of Great Britain, such as the lower level of real wages in Northern Ireland, together with the very much higher price of fuel and, of course, the very much higher level of unemployment—in short, the much more general and deeper prevalence of poverty in Northern Ireland.
Although it is valid for my hon. Friends to make these points, and factually they are well based, I should like to bring the Minister back to the point that I made in an intervention. The phrase "collectable debt" is not very clear, to say the least; it is ambiguous. I have done some arithmetic on my information which may help the House in considering the contention by the Minister and the Ulster Unionists that the attitude of mind of the people of Northern Ireland is different and worse.
The chairman of the Electricity Council, Sir Francis Tombs, advised me that last year:
The value of aggregate outstanding debt…owed to the electricity supply industry in England and Wales…for electricity (i.e. consumption read in the year) and work done, was £499 million.


The chairman of British Gas, Sir Dennis Rooke, said in relation to the same year:
the aggregate value of debtors less provisions, in respect of gas, fittings and products…was "—
for England, Scotland and Wales:
£299,700.
The grand total for the gas and electricity industries is about £729 million. I confess straightaway that these figures do not include the outstanding electricity debt in Scotland, but in my argument I shall assume that the £729 million relates to the total population of Scotland, England and Wales.
My simple arithmetic is that the combined populations of Scotland, England and Wales are about 35 times the population of Northern Ireland, but the aggregate of the debts owed to the gas and electricity boards in Scotland, England and Wales is 48 times that of the debt that the Minister informed the House was owed in Northern Ireland to the gas and electricity councils.
I grant freely and without hesitation that there is a crudeness about my statistics. However, the size of the outstanding debts owed to the gas and electricity industries by the two populations gives a fairly objective guide—I grant that it is rough but it is objective—to whether there is a significant difference in the per capita debt owed by the two populations. It seems that there is not such a difference in the terms that my right hon. Friend offered the House. The only substantial reason that he offered the House for asserting that there is a different attitude of mind in Northern Ireland does not seem to have any substance.
I suggest that my right hon. Friend asks his civil servants some searching questions. I suggest that he goes to the Department of Energy, as I did some time ago, to put those questions to that Department. In a Parliament that is legislating for the people of Northern Ireland and using a procedure that is essentially undemocratic, it is deplorable and adding insult to injury to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they must have this unfortunate law thrust upon them because they are morally inferior to the rest of the United Kingdom.
In essence, that is the argument that is being used. My right hon. Friend did

not emphasise that gas meter readers cannot go into some houses because it is not safe to do so. He emphasised that there is a different and worse attitude of mind in Northern Ireland. His proof was the level of debt and the increase in the level of debt.
I have another piece of news for my right hon. Friend. The aggregate debt on mainland Britain to the gas and electricity boards was £730 million, but that figure related to last year. Presumably the figure that he brought before the House today for Northern Ireland was the up-to-date figure. If my figures were to be updated for the United Kingdom, with another 12 months of continuing high levels of unemployment, continuing inflation and steep increases in fuel costs, it is £100 million to a penny that the £730 million of 1977 is now very much more. It is not that there is a higher per capita level of debt in Northern Ireland; there seems to be a higher per capita level of debt in mainland Britain. The basis on which the justification for the order is mounted is non-existent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) properly refuted my right hon. Friend's suggestion and that of several hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench that this hideous piece of legislation does not affect only the poor. It is said that it affects the whole social spectrum. It seems that we are talking about garage proprietors and small business men, for example, who are welshing on their responsibilities to the gas and electricity boards. They are doing so foolishly, because, as my right hon. Friend said, the people who have the benefits reallocated by the benefits allocation board are the poor. They are by definition poor. It is the benefits allocation board, which is a cynical and hideous piece of bureaucratic newspeak if ever there was one, that will allocate a poor person's supplementary benefit to a landlord, a gas board or an electricity board. A person does not receive supplementary benefit unless he is poor. The definition is a subsistence level, as are most of our benefits.

Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I asked earlier? Does he think that everyone on supplementary benefit or family income supplement should refuse to pay their way


and ask for a rebate for the years that they have been doing so?

Mr. Litterick: As I said in my opening sentence, the debate is not about whether people should pay their debts. It is about whether the people of Northern Ireland should be discriminated against specially by the State. That is what we are talking about. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that.
The benefits allocation board takes away benefits that are given to people to maintain their lives at subsistence level, and only at subsistence level. The exception is unemployment benefit for those who are on the earnings-related scheme. They may be in receipt of incomes that are rather higher than subsistence level. However, that does not apply to the longterm unemployed.
If my right hon. Friend seriously wishes to convince the House that this legislation does not bear most heavily on the poor, he will have to tell the House how many people are having child benefit reduced. That figure would indicate clearly a proportion of the total number who are having benefits of all types reduced. If more than half of all those subject to the activities of the benefits allocation board turned out to be having child benefits reduced, or scrapped, that would indicate a significant number, if not a majority, actually at work, and perhaps of the type mentioned by one or two Ulster Unionists. However, my right hon. Friend offered no such figures, and surely they would be available.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about as ludicrous as having a higher rate of marginal income tax to deal with the situation of those who are on higher levels of income and who do not pay their fuel bills?

Mr. Litterick: I wish that I shared my hon. Friend's expertise on tax matters.
It would be helpful to the House if my right hon. Friend told us how many people are having child benefit reduced and how that relates to the total number who are having one benefit or another reduced under the terms of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. It would also be helpful if he told us how many people are having benefits of any sort reduced and how that figure relates to this time last year and the year before that.

Mr. Fitt: Earlier this year I tabled a number of Questions to the Northern Ireland Minister who is concerned with the environment. I asked him how many persons in the various categories were receiving unemployment benefit, family income supplement, invalidity benefit and sickness benefit. Those Questions were given Written Answers, which may be found in Hansard of five weeks or six weeks ago.

Mr. Litterick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, the House would I be grateful to my right hon. Friend it he offered information so that we might know the trend. It would be helpful to know whether the number who are in receipt of benefit allocation is increasing or decreasing. That would be especially helpful as it relates to my right hon. Friend's argument, which is based on the number of people in receipt of child benefit payments who are having their benefits reduced.
Enough has been said to indicate that there is no rational basis for the original Act, let alone the order that is now before us. I am aware that some Ministers—I do not want to embarrass anybody—are unhappy about this legislation. It is not merely a matter of Ministers wishing that they did not have to see it brought before the House; they are unhappy about the principles involved. That is partly because they know that it violates the basic principles of the welfare system. They know also that it bears heaviest on the poorest in the community, those for whom I know my right hon. Friend has the greatest and most instinctive sympathy.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: As there is a more important debate to follow this, I shall be brief.
I find it strange that it is only now that we are extending this legislation to the payment of electricity and gas bills. I remind the House that many who are deeply in debt have the effrontery to apply for special needs grants, even though they have not paid and have no intention of paying their bills if they can get away with it.

Mr. Litterick: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that special needs grants are wiped out automatically when the benefits allocation board intervenes?

Mr. Ross: I am not sure that that is so in Northern Ireland, but I shall check on the position.
Does the Minister understand that most people in Northern Ireland who understand the situation regarding debts are greatly concerned that much of the debt arose because not enough was done to suppress the lawless and deal with those who did not meet their legal obligations in past years?
Is the Minister satisfied that the present system is satisfactory whereby people collect money in social benefits for rent and rates as part of their normal weekly payments? Indeed, is it wise that the money should get into their hands at all? Surely that situation could be avoided if the cash for rent went direct to the body which was entitled to it in the first place. Could that not be done, for instance, by over-printing the voucher or the giros so that, whenever they were passed over the post office counter, that sum was deducted and forwarded to the appropriate body without further ado?
Is it possible to restore the weekly collection of rent by collectors? In that way a closer relationship could be built up between the tenant and the Housing Executive, and it would help to reduce arrears more rapidly than any other action that could possibly be taken. The same would be true of pre-paid meters for gas and electricity in many parts of Northern Ireland.
What effect has non-payment for gas had on private gas undertakings in Northern Ireland? I understand that the order will apply only to council undertakings.
It should be understood that the withholding of payment for services started as a political act. Indeed, many people in Northern Ireland still look upon it as a political act. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who is not in his place, said that he stopped paying his rates because of internment. When he joined the power-sharing Executive, did he then pay his rates or did he wait until the last of the internees was released several years later? That is a matter of interest to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who were interned at that time.
The order is not only an attack upon those who steal or attempt to steal these services dishonestly by not paying for

them but protection for honest citizens at all levels of society who pay these bills. I urge the Minister not to be misled by those who lament like banshees over the difficulties of those who refuse to pay their way.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: You may be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not propose to speak at great length of this subject, particularly in view of the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), who made many points which certainly merit answers.
It has been suggested that the order does not differentiate between Protestants and Catholics and, therefore, that it is not related to part of the conflict in Northern Ireland. Certainly the order does not discriminate in that sense. But the poorer section of the community in Northern Ireland is made up of a majority of the Catholic population. Historically, Catholics have been discriminated against to a large degree by Governments at Stormont and by others associated with decision-making in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Craig: Can the hon. Gentleman prove that?

Mr. Thorne: Statistics show that applications for employment 30, 20 or even 10 years ago were heavily weighted in favour of those who could show membership of the Orange Lodge, Freemasonry or other organisations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Craig: Rubbish.

Mr. Thorne: The right hon. Gentleman may say "Rubbish", but he has a vested interest. I have to go on the basis not of statements but of the experience of people in Northern Ireland. My experience of the Ulster Unionists makes me aware that they are Conservatives with a capital "C". The issues and policies that they preach in Northern Ireland in class terms are no different from those preached by those who call themselves members of the Conservative Party. Their practices in a variety of ways cannot be identified as being in any way different from those of the Conservative Party.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who makes contributions to which many of us listen with


great interest, may have found his passage from the Conservative Party to the ranks of the Ulster Unionists easier because of the small divisions in terms of ideology and class interest which still exist. It was such class interest, pursued by the Ulster Unionists, which enabled them to support the Conservative Party recently in taking £500 million out of the Budget for the benefit of those earning over £10,000 a year.
It is in sharp contrast to that kind of act that we have to consider the approach of the Ulster Unionists to the order. I do not know how many Press Gallery writers will be able to get this over in the Northern Ireland Press tomorrow, but it is clear where Ulster Unionists stand in relation to the protection of the economic interests of working people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: It is your Government's order.

Mr. Thorne: We should contrast their support for tax relief for the middle and upper classes in Northern Ireland with their attitude to what I accept is a squalid order now being introduced by the Government.

Mr. McCusker: It is your order.

Mr. Thorne: The very fact that the Government are introducing the order does not make me a party to it. If I consider it appropriate, and should there be a Division, I shall make clear my attitude to the order by voting against it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot brand it as my order.
We are concerned with people on fixed low incomes, people who, as has been indicated, constitute the much poorer section of the Northern Ireland community. It is because they are poor and because of certain other factors which were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), that the arrears arise. They stem from the poverty that exists. For the Government now to decide that it is appropriate to introduce an order giving powers to deduct from child benefit an amount sufficient to repay the debts is an extremely squalid measure, even for the Northern Ireland Office, which has been capable of several other such measures over recent years.
In most families in Northern Ireland the father tends to look after the finances, to determine how the income will be spent. Yet the child benefit is paid to the mother. All too often, as is the case on this side of the water, she will to some degree be the victim of the decisions taken by the father about how the funds will he used. We are supposed to be increasingly aware of the need to prevent discrimination based upon sex. In my view child benefit should under no pretext be subject to Government powers of deduction to meet debts, from whatever source.
For years we have been developing a Welfare State based upon many of the ideas of Beveridge and others during the latter part of the last war. At no time was it ever suggested—I should have thought on either side of the House—that it would be relevant at some future date to introduce a measure that permitted in certain circumstances the deduction from those benefits of moneys to be paid to public corporations.
I accept that deductions are already made in Britain from supplementary benefit to meet electricity bill arrears. We see tonight, however, a new dimension, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak has indicated. We propose now deliberately to discriminate against the Northern Ireland poor by instituting this order. On the basis of the comprehensive statements by my hon. Friend and others, I believe that we should not let the order pass without a number of us seeking to indicate that it is unacceptable.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: It was clear from the Minister of State's opening speech that the problem of debt to the gas and electricity undertakings in Northern Ireland is of enormous and growing proportions. If we have one criticism of the Government it is that this order was not introduced earlier. It nearly was introduced earlier. It is entitled "draft Payments for Debt (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978", but the explanatory document was issued in December 1977. With his customary lucidity the Minister of State has made out an overwhelming case for introducing the order.
The cost of electricity in Great Britain has risen rapidly, and the poorest of our


citizens find it extremely difficult to meet the charge for heating house and water by electricity. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the problems facing people in Northern Ireland, where the cost of electricity and gas is even higher, are even more serious.
That, however, is not the point at issue. The point is that there is a very large and growing debt to the gas and electricity authorities. Some of that debt is incurred by the poorest families in Northern Ireland, but a significant proportion of it is not. Many of the poorest families in Northern Ireland have paid and are paying their gas and electricity bills promptly, as the Minister of State has confirmed. If the Government fail to take the only practical steps open to them in the humane way described by the Minister of State, they will be guilty of grave dereliction of duty. They will penalise the poorest people in Northern Ireland who have been paying faithfully and regularly.

Mr. Litterick: No one would take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the statement he made in its own terms. Does he not, however, agree that he is not providing justification for introducing the same provisions in mainland Britain, unless he or the Minister can prove that there is a qualitative difference about the debtors in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gow: I shall be coming to that matter in a moment.
Failure by the Government to take the sort of action envisaged in this order would be monstrously unfair to the majority of people in Northern Ireland who pay their gas and electricity bills promptly, and, above all, to the poorest citizens of Northern Ireland who are paying and have paid faithfully.
Once debt to public authorities escalates at the rate at which it is eclalating in Northern Ireland, other serious consequences flow for the social life of the community. It is a spreading disease. The Minister of State explained the extent to which those in Northern Ireland who previously paid their bills now say "If so many other people are not paying, why should I?" The disease is highly infectious, and unless steps are taken now there is no doubt that it will become much

worse and possibly eventually even incurable.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) challenged me to say how it was justified to make the order for Northern Ireland while not making a similar order for Great Britain. We on the Opposition side were convinced by the Minister of State's arguments. They showed that the debt problem in Northern Ireland is immensely more serious, particularly in the case of gas and electricity, than anywhere in Great Britain.
However, there is another aspect to which the Minister of State drew attention. In Great Britain it is possible, as we all know—and it actually happens—for supplies of gas and electricity to be cut off for those who are in default over a period of time—quite a short period in the case we heard from the Minister of State. But, for reasons that we all understand, it is not possible in some parts of Northern Ireland, notably Belfast and Londonderry, for an inspector from the electricity or gas departments to go and cut off the supply of electricity or gas.
So there are two elements. It is physically not possible in Northern Ireland in many places to carry out the same sanction and remedy that is used in Great Britain, and the scale of the problem is very much greater in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, we believe that the order is justified. We believe that the assurances that the Minister of State has given about the humane way in which it is proposed to administer the order are entirely reasonable. I do not wish to end on a critical note. However, we believe that there would have been a very strong case indeed for introducing the order earlier than the Government have decided to introduce it.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: Hon. Members have shown a very great interest in this measure. The Government decided to introduce it with great regret. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I get very little joy out of putting to the House an order such as this, or the necessity for it. We had to do it with regret, but with determination that the problem of fuel debts should be tackled directly.
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friends. However, they must understand


that this debt is climbing rapidly. Whenever Northern Ireland Question Time comes around, there is a Question on this subject, and the debt is rising. It is all right to criticise, which is the thing to do, but I did not hear one hon. Member offer me any assistance on how I can stop this spiral of fuel debt or even on how to start collecting the fuel debt in Northern Ireland.
On the strategy of public debt, the order authorises the imposition of a collection charge on fuel debts subject to the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland). That is all that the order does. It is only a very narrow order. However, before even talking about a very tight order such as this, I took it upon myself at least to bring out into the open what is involved, I hope that I have done that.
I know that much of this old debt problem goes back to the rent and rates strike and the ending of internment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said in Northern Ireland that people should then pick up their debts and pay them as internment had ended. I know that my hon. Friend paid his debts. I only wish that everyone else had done so. I should not be here today if they had. Unfortunately, however, even those who started to pay, as my hon. Friend did, certainly did not start to pay off their arrears. What they have done is just to start picking up the tab from when they recommenced paying their debts.
Again, this did not answer the problem for me. My hon. Friend knows that this problem exists from people who live on the same street. There are people who are still wilfully withholding these debts. There are people to whom benefit application will apply. The honest and well-disposed people will make voluntary arrangements. I was also in charge of the Department when we were having the same problem with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The very mentioning of the order brought many people forward to make voluntary arrangements. I hope that this is what will happen again.
I do not wish people to be put on benefit allocation any more than anyone else. But Ministers have a duty to collect

this debt if we possibly can and, of course, to see to the welfare of those who are paying their debts and making voluntary arrangements for so doing. The only problem that I see in Northern Ireland in this regard is that the vast majority of debtors are making no effort to pay any money whatsoever.
It is a fact that in the allocation of benefits a certain sum within the benefit is for fuel, rates and so on. None of that money has been paid over in certain circumstances. I must impress upon my hon. Frend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) that I have a terrible job convincing people about this matter. I meet three or four deputations a day when I am in Northern Ireland. The feeling is "You are not going to do anything about it, and you sit there and let it happen." This is really what has happened. If we had been of the frame of mind suggested by some of my hon. Friends, the order would have been laid some considerable time ago.
We have looked at every other alternative. What we should be accused of tonight is of allowing the debt to grow to the size it has. It is only because we have tried every avenue, opening up offices and offering every means of helping people to pay their debts by voluntary arrangements, saying "All right, if you start paying now, if you offer a little, that will be enough," that this order has not been introduced previously. We have the rent rebate scheme. I was in Northern Ireland when we introduced that scheme. Many of these people need not have been paying rent at all if they had asked to be included in that scheme. All these matters must be considered.
In Northern Ireland we have a winter discount scheme, but it is not just for electricity. We were fortunate enough to get it for gas, as well, and not at 25 per cent. but at 40 per cent. There were also the sums of £5 paid over the counter, and many of those sums of £5 were paid over the counter to enable people to pay their electricity and gas bills, but the money has never got back to us.
This attitude of mind has grown up in Northern Ireland. I was chided by my hon. Friend the Member for Seliy Oak. I am faced with this attitude continuously. There is a considerable and growing debt. If it was going down, one could look at


it from an entirely different viewpoint, but it is going up and up every week. More and more people are saying or implying "If you are not going to do anything at all, why should we pay?"
One or two of my hon. Friends have said that the benefit allocation branch discriminates against Northern Ireland. My only point is that this is a problem of Northern Ireland. Whatever arguments take place between hon. Members representing various constituencies in Northern Ireland about common legislation, this is one of those occasions on which this is a Northern Ireland problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak and I will have terrible arguments about this, but I have assurances from the Department of Energy that my figures are correct. There is no possibility of debt in the rest of Great Britain—I am talking now about payment of bills—being anywhere near the examples that I have put forward this evening. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to write back to the chairman and get details of whether this is really money owed by people not paying their current accounts to the electricity board or gas board. I assure him that the Department of Energy has assured me that there is no comparison whatsoever between the debt problem in the rest of the United Kingdom and that in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Litterick: If the Minister of State does not mind, I shall send him copies of the letters that I received from the chairmen of the two British boards. Perhaps he will wish to follow them up for himself. However, I take another point. Within his own terms, the Minister of State has quite rightly said that this is a Northern Ireland problem. However, I should like to point out that within Northern Ireland there is a quite obvious discrimination involved in this kind of legislation. It discriminates against those who are not in work. I should like the Minister to devote some part of his speech to telling us what the Northern Ireland administration does to people who are in work and who do not pay their electricity bills or their rent, as clearly the only benefit that the Minister can possibly get at is child benefit or perhaps family income supplement.

Mr. Concannon: We can get at those in work a little more easily than we can

get at those not in work. We can use enforcement of judgment orders for people in work who have a wage or salary. We cannot use enforcement of judgment orders for those out of work, on supplementary benefit and so on. Again, for those in work we can use attachment of earnings or similar means. Therefore, those in work are more get-at-able.
I should add, however, that we have to go to some quite harsh extremes to get money even out of those in work, even some in the professions. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends have said that people are withholding money for political reasons, but we must chase them up and chase up this debt.
I can give my hon. Friends a figure which may ease their minds a little. In February 1977 there were over 5,500 benefit allocations, and by May this year the figure was down to 2,089. I said in my opening speech that child benefit was used only on very rare occasions Out of that figure of just over 2,000, in only 10 cases is child benefit deducted. If someone is in receipt of child benefit, she is normally in receipt of other benefits, and these are the benefits which are subject to allocation. If a woman is receiving child benefit and her husband is in employment, we do not have to touch the child benefit because there are other ways by which we can get the debt back.

Mr. Fitt: I think that my right hon. Friend may well be helping the tone of the debate. He has told the House that there are only 2,000 people having benefit deducted through the benefit allocation branch. Do I understand that figure of 2,000 correctly?

Mr. Concannon: That is the figure of just over 2,000, but I must stress that this new allocation in respect of gas and electricity will not apply until 1st October. However, I should add that one can make only one allocation at a time, and if these people are in rent arrears, gas arrears and electricity arrears, one can make only one allocation. If they are in rent arrears now, one will have to wait until the rent arrears are collected before one can go on to gas or electricity.
Obviously, we do not allocate any benefits in Great Britain because in Great Britain there are no consumers owing


arrears for three or more consecutive quarters, and it is only the hard core of debtors who will be made subject to benefit allocation in Northern Ireland.
In the first instance, benefit allocation involves ensuring that fuel undertakings take all reasonable steps to assist consumers to avoid debt. I assure my hon. Friends that we have gone into this matter deeply and at length. The system involves the use of devices such as pre-payment meters, savings stamps, budget payment schemes and the coin-operated collection device to which I referred in my opening speech.
A consumer already in arrears will be encouraged and assisted to clear his debt by voluntary arrangement. Benefit allocation and other procedures under the Act will be available to the undertakings as a last resort. This is a last resort which we are using, and I assure my hon. Friends that if it had not been a last resort we should probably have come before the House months ago in an effort to do something about it. But we have literally gone into the last detail before doing so, and we have said to the undertakings that they must use every other means open to them before deciding to adopt this system.
Before a consumer becomes liable to benefit allocation, he will be given every opportunity to make a voluntary arrangement. This is what consumers in debt should do. It is to their own benefit to make a voluntary arrangement. Only the unwilling will become subject to benefit allocation and the collection charge.
Benefit allocation will be available to the fuel undertakings from 1st October, and I urge those in debt to make a voluntary arrangement with their supplier before that date and avoid a compulsory method of payment.
The size of the fuel debt is some £16 million, and it has been from the continued growth of this figure that justification for the extension of benefit allocation has arisen. This is a scale of fuel debt, as I have said, which is unknown in Great Britain. I have noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. I shall put down on paper exactly the facts as we have them and put the matter to him in writing.
The Government recognise that it will be difficult for many poor families to make their repayment without experiencing some hardship. However, the Government have a duty to all fuel consumers in Northern Ireland who are responsibly paying their way, and these include many low-income households. This is one of the problems with which I have had to wrestle. Not only are there people who have not been paying their debts but there are others, perhaps next-door neighbours in the same circumstances, who have paid their debts. I have to answer these people as well and I have to look after their affairs. I must ensure that those who wish to avoid meeting their obligations do not succeed in doing so. If there are those in the same circumstances who are discharging their obligations, we must, as a Government, make sure that one section of the community does not take advantage of another.
We shall always be willing to consider possible ways of easing the burden of repayment, but only in the context of the need for arrears to be cleared within a reasonable time.
I have already referred to the appeals procedure, and I know that there are hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who put that appeals procedure to use. I believe that it works. One cannot win them all, but, from the figures I have, it is clear that a good number of them can be won.

Mr. Fitt: Could my right hon. Friend say how many people will be caught by this new legislation? I am speaking of domestic gas and electricity accounts, not of business accounts.

Mr. Concannon: In Northern Ireland, for electricity, there are 43,000 debtors, which is one in 10 of electricity consumers.

Mr. Fitt: For gas?

Mr. Concannon: As my hon. Friend knows, gas is a Belfast problem, but there are 30,000 debtors to the Belfast Gas Corporation, and that is one in four. They will not necessarily all go into benefit allocation. I can only remind my hon. Friend of the experience which I had when the Northern Ireland Housing


Executive had the same problem. Once people heard that the legislation was on the statute book or was to become law, a lot came forward and made voluntary arrangements. Also, a lot of them came forward and paid cash. I am expecting much the same to happen now. But there will be those about who, I think, we are all very much bothered.
I think that my hon. Friend recognises that the system now is very much humanised and personalised. We do not want to subject people to undue hardship. As I say, there are means to appeal, and the appeals work. The figures are quite convincing, and people are coming forward on appeal. But once they get to the appeals stage and come forward, the

vast majority then make a voluntary arrangement as well.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand that we regret having to introduce such legislation as this. Possibly it is one of the sad consequences of the situation in Northern Ireland, but the continued growth of the fuel debts, and the statistics and individual case histories to which I have referred, convince me that the order is necessary. With regret, I may say, I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 23.

Division No. 233]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moonman, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Armstrong, Ernest
Freud, Clement
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
Neave, Airey


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Nelson, Anthony


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ginsburg, David
Newton, Tony


Bates, Alf
Golding, John
Oakes, Gordon


Beith, A. J.
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Pardoe, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gray, Hamish
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grocott, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Bradford, Rev Robert
Harper, Joseph
Rathbone, Tim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haselhurst, Alan
Robertson,George (Hamilton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooley, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rooker, J. W.


Cant, R. B.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carson, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter, Ray
Hunter, Adam
Sever, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cartwright, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sims, Roger


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stanley, John


Conlan, Bernard
Kilfedder, James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Corbett, Robin
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Cowans, Harry
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Tinn, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Torney, Tom


Craig, Rt Hon W (Belfast E)
Luard, Evan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Crouch, David
McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McCusker, H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Cryer, Bob
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ward, Michael


Cunningham, Dr J.(Whiteh)
McElhone, Frank
Watkins, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Weitzman, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mackintosh, John P.
White, James (Pollok)


Dewar, Donald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Dormand, J. D.
Magee, Bryan
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Winterton, Nicholas


Dunlop, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Woodall, Alec


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Woof, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Mather, Carol
Wrigglesworth, Alan


Eadle, Alex
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert



English, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Evans, John (Newton)
Molloy, William
Mr. James Hamilton.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Molyneaux, James





NOES


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gould, Bryan
Noble, Mike
Mr. Tom Litterick and


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ron Thomas.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Payments for Debt (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MATRIMONIAL CAUSES)

8.20 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
I ask for the indulgence of the House because the introductory speech is of necessity a little longer than normal.
The purpose of the order is to reform the law of Northern Ireland relating to divorce, annulment of marriage, judicial separation and other matters connected with marriage. The effect will be to bring Northern Ireland law on those subjects broadly into accord with the law of England and Wales.
The House will wish me to begin by saying a few words about the historical setting in which this order comes before us. Until 1939 the only way in Northern Ireland of obtaining a divorce conferring freedom to remarry was by the passage of a Private Act of Parliament. There were in fact 63 such divorce Acts passed by the Stormont Parliament over the period of 15 years from 1924 to 1939—an average of just over four a year. But the procedure was unsatisfactory and unnecessarily expensive, and in 1939, for the first time, the Northern Ieland High Court was given power to grant divorces.
As in other countries, the divorce rate has been rising steadily over the past 10 years. Last year alone there were 700 divorce petitions. But evidence before us shows that there are cases where the existing law is inadequate to deal with the problems of some marriages that have already broken down—with grave social consequences for those concerned, especially the children.
Under the Matrimonial Causes Act (Northern Ireland) 1939, which is the existing law, the party seeking a divorce has to demonstrate that the other spouse has been guilty of a matrimonial offence such as adultery, cruelty or desertion. Indeed, it is recognised that presently in order to be successful evidence must be presented in terms that there is a guilty party, who must be severely punished, and an innocent party, who must be vindicated. This is done with full public

knowledge and publicity, with the consequential adverse impact that it can have on the future well-being of those concerned. May I remind the House that it has been my experience, and I am sure that of others, that nothing is lost in the retelling of what a person imagined he had heard.
The law I have described corresponds to that which existed in England and Wales prior to the passing of the Divorce Reform Act 1969. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the English law of divorce is now governed by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which is a consolidation of the Divorce Reform Act 1969, the Nullity of Marriage Act 1971 and those provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 which relate to the termination of marriage.
One of the main purposes—indeed I believe the main purpose—of the English legislation was to discard the concepts of guilt and punishment, and to consider, factually, whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down. In this it has taken a more realistic view of human behaviour than the existing law of Northern Ireland just as, in relation to property and financial settlements, it has a more compassionate approach.
Over the past few years there has been growing pressure in Northern Ireland for divorce law reform. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, took account of this feeling when on 2nd July 1976, in a speech in this House, he expressed the Government's intention to seek the advice of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. On 18th April 1977 the Commission recommended that the law on this matter should be brought more closely into line with the current law in England and Wales. The Government's response to that recommendation was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this House on 19th July 1977, and, in cosequence, a proposal for a draft matrimonial causes order was published on 24th November last.
The Government were most anxious to have the widest possible consultation and debate on the proposed draft order. To this end an explanatory document was


made generally available to stimulate public discussion, and the normal consultation period was extended to three months. We attached the greatest importance to the expression of opinion on the subject of the grounds for divorce and made clear our willingness to take account of all opinions expressed either orally or in writing before draft legislation would be brought before this House.
May I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the many people and organisations within Northern Ireland for their response, not just those who wrote, often at great length, or those who discussed their opinions with me, but also those who organised seminars, conferences and other meetings to explore the issues in depth? I pay particular tribute to the Queen's University, Belfast, because it is my firm conviction that its seminar provided a base for a more informed public debate.
Despite the reservations expressed by some—including an eminent jurist and the Committee of the Northern Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church—about the prospect of easier divorce, it was clear that the majority showed an overwhelming desire to bridge the gap between the divorce laws in different parts of the United Kingdom. In placing on record my appreciation, I wish it to be widely known that the response I have described, while in principle in favour of extending the divorce law of Great Britain to Northern Ireland, was also equally anxious that this should not be done uncritically or without having due regard to local opinions, attitudes and conditions. I believe that this measure now bears the imprint of that approach—that there is a distinct Northern Ireland character to the order.
Before I conclude I shall indicate the main features which distinguish this order from the legislation in Great Britain. However, may I first say a word or two about the order generally? In doing so I shall endeavour to draw out the principles on which it is based rather than give a recital of its detailed provisions.
The order provides that the sole ground of divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. This will be established by proof of one or more of the facts set out in Article 3(2).
Article 3(2)(a) provides that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is to be inferred from the respondent's adultery. It also stipulates that the adultery must have been committed since the date of the marriage. Adultery is thus retained as a ground for divorce in its own right, as it is in Scotland. In England the petitioner must also prove that he or she finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. I believe that the choice whether to rely on the adultery ought to be left to the aggrieved spouse.
The second group of facts which the court may look to in considering the possible breakdown of a marriage is set out in Article 3(2)(b). This relates to the respondent's behaviour. Clearly it comprises much of the ground covered by the old matrimonial offences. "Cruelty" cases, for instance, and the former ground of mental illness are subsumed under this heading.
But I emphasise that mental illness by itself will no longer be a sufficient ground. In future the emphasis will be upon the patient's behaviour, not upon the patient's clinical condition. The court must look at the respondent's conduct and its impact on the petitioner in the light of their relationship. As one judge has put it,
Would any right-thinking person come to a conclusion that this husband has behaved in such a way that this wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him, taking into account the whole of the circumstances and the characters and personalities of the parties?
The real test is not whether the respondent is morally culpable but simply whether the facts are such that, after making all allowances for the respondent's disabilities and for the temperaments of both parties, the character and gravity of his or her acts are such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
This is fully in accord with the basic principles of the legislation. It really means that behaviour must be regarded from an objective and not merely a subjective point of view. If the provision applied only to deliberate behaviour we would be back with the concept of the matrimonial offence.
When the Divorce Reform Act 1969 came into operation there was little or no direct authority upon how this guideline to irretrievable breakdown would


operate in practice and there has indeed been some difficulty about the interpretation of the word "behaviour", particularly where the party whose conduct is complained of is mentally ill. This is, undoubtedly, a complex subject. It is important to distinguish two questions clearly.
The first is, can negative conduct or involuntary actions amount to "behaviour"? The second is, when has any given behaviour been such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent?
The first of these questions was for some time the cause of conflicting expressions of legal opinion in the courts. However, it now seems reasonably well established that "behaviour" is capable of including negative conduct, for example, prolonged silences or total inactivity, as well as positive conduct, and can also include conduct which is involuntary and stems from mental or physical illness or injury.
Where the real difficulty arises is in determining whether the behaviour makes it unreasonable to expect the couple to live together. This is an objective test, but it is one that must take account of the mental states of both parties. It has been judicially stated that the facts of each case must be considered and a decision made, having regard to all the circumstances, whether the particular petitioner can or cannot reasonably be expected to live with the particular respondent.
If the behaviour stems from misfortune such as the onset of mental illness or from disease of the body, or from accidental physical injury, the court must take full account of all the obligations of the married state. These will include the normal duty to accept and to share the burdens imposed on the family as a result of the mental or physical ill-health of one member. The court will also consider the capacity of the petitioner to withstand the stresses imposed by the behaviour, the steps taken to cope with it, the length of time during which the petitioner has been called on to bear it and the actual or potential effect on his or her health. The court will then be required to make a judgment whether the petitioner can fairly be required to live with the respondent.
The granting of the decree to the petitioner does not necessarily involve any blameworthiness on the part of the respondent, and no doubt in cases of misfortune the judge will make this clear in his judgment.
In reaching a decision the judge will have regard to all the circumstances, including the disabilities and temperaments of both parties, the causes of the behaviour and whether the causes were or were not known to the petitioner, the presence or absence of intention, the impact of it on the petitioner and the family unit, its duration, and the prospects of cure or improvement in the future. If the judge decides that it would be unreasonable to expect the petitioner to live with the respondent he must grant a decree of divorce unless he is satisfied that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down.
A further problem that may arise in this connection is that of a person who is rendered permanently comatose or turned into a human vegetable as a result of a road accident or other affliction. Does such a condition amount to "behaviour" which indicates the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage and entitles the victim's spouse to a divorce? As the House will realise, this question has not yet been answered by the courts. However, I have already pointed out that, under the order, mental illness as such is not a fact giving a right to divorce, as it is under present law. Similarly, physical illness will not by itself be such a fact. It seems, therefore, right in principle that total immobility caused by total unconsciousness should not by itself be a ground for a divorce petition.
Article 3(2)(c) reduces the prescribed period of desertion from the three years under the present law to two years. This is because of the close connection between the time provided for in this paragraph for desertion and the time provided in Article 3(2)(d) for separation. Two years' desertion is even stronger evidence of the breakdown of a marriage than two years' separation.
Article 3(2)(d) and (e) bring about the major practical changes in the law. It is at this point that the Divorce Reform Act broke entirely new grounds. Paragraph (d) requires that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at


least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to a decree being granted. Paragraph (e) requires that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The fact that the parties have spent the required period "living apart" is taken to be an indication not only that the marriage has broken down but that it has done so irretrievably.
Two provisions are specifically designed to give protection to the respondent when the petitioner relies on two or five years' separation. First, under Article 7, the respondent to a petition for divorce in which the petitioner alleges five years' separation may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship to him and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage. It is expressly laid down that hardship for this purpose includes the loss of the chance of acquiring any benefit that the respondent might acquire if the marriage were not dissolved.
Secondly, under Article 12, where a petition for divorce is based either on two years' or five years' separation and the respondent applies for consideration of his financial position, the court may not make the decree absolute unless it is satisfied either that the petitioner should not be required to make any financial provision for the respondent or that the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances or, where an early decree is desirable, that the petitioner has given a satisfactory undertaking to bring the question of proper financial provision for the respondent before the court.
These are complex provisions and apply when the petition does not disclose any fault or breach of matrimonial obligation on the respondent's part. The issues raised usually concern loss of social security benefits based on the husband's contributions and of private pension rights. There are few reported cases of other grave hardship. Although a petition for divorce based on five years separation may be opposed, as I have said, on the ground that the dissolution

of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage, a decree is unlikely to be refused if the wife respondent is young, without children and able to earn her living or the marriage has lasted for a very short time. None the less, in the admitted rare cases in which Article 7 can apply it provides a considerable safeguard.
Before turning to the proposals for better financial protection for a respondent spouse, may I say a word about reconciliation, distinguishing between that concept and the concept of conciliation. The difference between reconciliation and conciliation is succinctly stated in the Finer Report on One-Parent Families. By "reconciliation" is meant the reuniting of the spouses. By "conciliation" is meant assisting the parties to deal with the consequences of the established breakdown of their marriage, whether resulting in a divorce or a separation, by reaching agreements, giving consents or reducing the area of conflict upon custody, support, access to and education of the children, financial provision, the disposition of the matrimonial home, lawyers' fees and every other matter arising from the breakdown which calls for a decision on future arrangements.
Article 4 of the order seeks to encourage reconciliation by encouraging the spouses to live together with a view to resolving their differences. This may seem a very obvious course of action, but surprisingly enough, present law penalises spouses who resume cohabitation, by treating their living together as condonation of adultery or cruelty or termination of desertion. Article 5 prevents a divorce petition being presented within three years of a marriage save in the most exceptional circumstances. The purpose is first of all to deter hasty marriages by those who may say "Well, we can always get a divorce" and, secondly, to allow time for reflection when newly-weds quarrel. Article 8 encourages adjournment of court proceedings where reconciliation seems possible. This order does not follow the English and Welsh legislation requiring that a solicitor shall certify to the court where he or she has discussed the possibility of reconciliation. Everything I have heard convinces me that this has not proved effective in practice.
A major reform enshrined in the order is the conferring on the courts of important new powers to award ancillary relief on divorce, the annulment of a marriage or judicial separation. The main changes from existing law are as follows.
First, the distinctions in terminology between maintenance, alimony, and periodical or gross sums are abolished. All will now be described as "financial provision" except alimony granted on an interim basis, which is now termed "maintenance pending suit".
Second, there will be no distinction between the powers of the court in relation to husbands and wives, or petitioners and respondents
Third, all forms of periodical financial payment, but not maintenance pending suit, are capable of being secured and of being awarded for the life of the payee or, except in cases of judicial separation, until he or she remarries, whichever may be the shorter period.
Fourth, the court is empowered to award a lump sum both in respect of the future and also to enable the payee to discharge liabilities already reasonably incurred in order to maintain the payee or the children, and to order any lump sum to be payable by instalments.
Fifth, there is power to order either spouse to make financial provision by way of periodical payments secured or unsecured, or lump sums, to or for the benefit of a child of the family. This power is designed to preserve as far as possible the pecuniary position of the child whether in nullity, divorce, judicial separation or wilful neglect proceedings.
Sixth, the legislation is drafted in terms of "children of the family", which includes any child, including an illegitimate or adopted child, of both spouses and any other child, except one boarded out with the spouses, who has been treated by both of the spouses as a child of their family.
Seventh, clear principles are introduced regarding the maximum age to which orders in favour of children extend. Periodical financial provision will not be ordered beyond the child's attaining the upper limit of compulsory school age unless there are children of the family receiving educational instruction or under-

going training for a career, or where there are other children whom the court considers "need protection."
Eighth, power is given to the court to order settlement of property and to vary existing settlements; and there is power to vary most financial provision orders, but not those for payment of a lump sum or, normally, those affecting settlements.
Ninth, extended power is given to the court to alter maintenance agreements.
In determining the financial provision to be made for a spouse the court is to have regard, among other things to the spouses' respective contributions to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family. The aim is to put the spouses, if possible, in the financial position they would have been in had the marriage not broken down so far as, having regard to their conduct, it is just to do so.
I appreciate fully that many people are concerned that an offending spouse may be, as they see it, insufficiently penalised in the property division on account of his or her conduct. I believe it is important to remember that the order reduces the matter to a question of justice and injustice. Would it be unjust to the other spouse to ignore particular conduct? If it would, the conduct must go into the balance. This seems a reasonable yardstick.
What the provision of Article 27(1) aims at is avoiding the arguments and recriminations which for too long have been a sad feature of some divorce actions. It is recognised that normally some fault exists on both sides, and a minute weighing up of such conduct ought to be discouraged. The hearing of mutual condemnations, allegations and counter allegations by the parties to the case would frustrate the order's aim of enabling what is an "empty legal shell" of a broken marriage to be ended with the minimum bitterness, distress or humiliation.
The community has come a long way from earlier experiences of divorce jurisdiction where a wife who had committed adultery, or deserted her husband, received at most a compassionate allowance which might save her from utter


destitution or, as the old ecclesiastical courts put it, was to
be fed with the bread of affliction and with the water of adversity".
Today's approach is much more humane and compassionate. It corresponds with the community's view that financial resources should be disposed of on the basis of need rather than by a finely balanced apportionment of blame.
In brief, immoral or other adverse conduct will not affect the ultimate award of financial provision unless it would be unjust to ignore it. Two other points ought to be mentioned. First, that the conduct of one party may be relevant in increasing the other party's share in matrimonial property; and secondly, that such conduct is not to be treated as being confined only to matrimonial misconduct. The "scheming" wife, about whom some understandable fears have been expressed, is likely to have her claim for financial provision described by the court, as "astonishing and impudent", particularly if her conduct was calculated to destroy the marriage in circumstances in which the other party is substantially or entirely blameless.
I come now to the principal amendments which it has been decided to make to the order as first published in the light of comments received during the consultative period. It will be apparent from the scope of these changes that the Government have responded meaningfully to the representations received and consequentially have accrued benefit from the discussion, debate and exchange of views shown in a multiplicity of ways over the last few months. I have already expressed my indebtedness to all those who gave me the benefit of their considered opinion and participated in what I consider to have been a most worthwhile process. In my opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome of this consultative period has aroused such considerable interest and been so rewarding.
I begin with the most important of the amendments made to the original draft order as first published. As the House will be aware, the children of divorcing parents were under the proposal for a draft order, already entitled to adequate economic support, and Article 43 of the proposal—now Article 44 of the present draft—proposed safeguards where child-

ren are involved in cases of divorce, nullity or judicial separation.
In Article 43 of the present draft a significant new provision is proposed—namely, that rules of court shall provide for the reference of such cases to a properly qualified person, in practice normally a social worker employed by one of the health and social services boards, who will consider the possibility of conciliation between the spouses and will report on the children and the arrangements for their welfare. The intention is that the social worker to whom a case is referred will endeavour to talk to both parents and, if they are willing, arrange for them to meet a marriage guidance counsellor.
I am aware that, once a divorce action has begun, the chance of maintaining the marriage by reconciliation is very remote. the Finer Report makes it clear that this has been the experience not only in Great Britain but abroad. I take the view that if the parties will only listen, a great deal of valuable conciliation work can be achieved with the help of a counsellor. He can work for the creation of a more reasonable and understanding attitude between the parties with a view to avoiding unnecessary conflicts on matters concerning money, the family home and, most important, the children.
The social worker will also see the children and will prepare a report for the judge on the arrangements proposed by one parent or both for their welfare. One must be realistic about this. In practice, the options open to a court in settling the children's future are often limited, but there will be other cases where the social worker's report shows a very different assessment from that shown by the Statement as to arrangements for children attached to the divorce petition. In such cases the judge will have power to instruct that the children are separately represented by counsel.
If the future well-being of a child is not adequately served under the custody of either parent or some other close relative, the children, as a last resort of protection, could be committed to care under Article 46 of the order or, in suitable cases, a child can be placed under supervision in accordance with Article 47.
Another additional benefit from the provision of Article 43 is that the social


worker's visit could indicate the need for other relevant social service agencies to advise on benefits and services to which the parties in the divorce or the children may be entitled.
During the consultative period, vigorous representations were made both for and against the county court being given a divorce jurisdiction. It has been determined after due consideration that this should be so, and the Lord Chancellor will have enabling powers under Article 48 of the proposed legislation to select the courts that will exercise this jurisdiction.
Amendments to Articles 2, 25, 25 and 32 empower the court, when making financial or property orders, to give consequential directions. Such directions may order the sale or exchange of property or create a charge on property. So far as these amendments empower the court to order a sale of property, they duplicate Clause 91 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Bill, but there is advantage in having in the order a comprehensive power for the court to give a full range of consequential directions.
A particular advantage of the amendments is that they confer on the court a new power to make charging orders. The power is a flexible one and allows the court to direct that a charge is to be effective after a specified interval—for example, when all the children have come of age.
Amendments to Articles 3 and 4 empower the court to dismiss a petition for divorce based on proof of adultery, if the adultery has been connived at by the petitioner. In this context "connivance" relates to some action or default on the part of the petitioner undertaken with the intention that adultery should result or, at least, some acquiescence amounting to promoting the adultery by wilfully refraining from taking any action to prevent it. The concept therefore covers a broad field, but the essential element in every case is that there must be a "corrupt intention".
At present, connivance is an absolute bar to divorce. This means the court must refuse a decree unless it is satisfied that no connivance has occurred. The amendments propose that in future it

could be a defence, and this accords with the philosophy of Article 51 of the order that the bars to divorce in the existing law should be abolished, but still enables an abuse of the law to be prevented. The amendments would, therefore, expressly empower the court to withhold a decree in any flagrant case of connivance, when the point is taken by the defence.
Substitution of paragraphs (1) to (4) of Article 29 abolishes sex discrimination in High Court and, in future, divorce county court maintenance proceedings. The amendments simplify the article and bring it more into accord with other provisions of the order. In particular husband and wife are given rights which are equal so far as circumstances require, there is no need to prove wilful neglect to maintain, but only failure to do so, maintenance can be ordered for any child of the family, and no longer expressly only for those the respondent might reasonably be expected to maintain, and a wife's adultery ceases to be a bar to the making of an order in her favour.
A change to Article 6 allows the period of a magistrates' non-cohabitation order to be added to a period of desertion. The amendments to Articles 6 and 29 follow the lines of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill at present before Parliament, although in the case of Article 6 with the qualification that the periods mentioned cannot by themselves solely be treated as periods of desertion but must be linked with some period of actual desertion.
I also bring to the attention of the House that we have felt able to strengthen Article 39 when an injunction is made under paragraph (2)(a), by enabling a statutory charge to be created on land thus giving further protection to a wife pending a financial or property order.
Finally, there are two amendments, on the face of them technical but with substantive effect, which I specifically wish to draw to the attention of the House. The first is paragraph (3) of Article 3, which requires the court to hear the petitioner's oral testimony before granting a divorce. This effectively excludes the introduction of the special procedure under which a divorce may be obtained on affidavit evidence alone—the so-called postal divorce.
The majority of those who gave us the benefit of their opinions made strong representations against the introduction of the special procedure for Northern Ireland. Those strong objections to the special procedure indicated a general view that such a procedure would reduce the dissolution of marriage to an unacceptable mere formality—as though it were of little consequence—and in honesty that is not the view of marriage still commonly held in Northern Ireland.
The second of the amendments to which I wish to refer concerns Articles 12 and 44. These amendments deal with two distinct situations—under Article 12, where the respondent is in a two or five years separation case and has applied to the court for consideration of the financial position after the divorce; and under Article 44 where the court has to consider the arrangements for the children. In each case the court is instructed not to make the divorce final unless it is satisfied, to put it briefly, that the financial provisions are adequate or that the children will be properly provided for.
The amendments propose that where a court makes a decree of divorce final without obeying that instruction the divorce should be voidable in both cases. That contrasts with the situation in England, where it has been held that the result of an oversight of the requirement of the provision equivalent to Article 12—that is, Section 10 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—is to make the divorce voidable, and where it is specifically provided that an oversight of the duty imposed by the equivalent of Article 44, Section 41 of the 1973 Act, makes the divorce void.
In incorporating these amendments we have accepted that it is excessive to make a decree absolute automatically void. A decree of divorce involves a change in status and should have as much certainty as possible. If a party has remarried on the strength of the decree, his after-taken wife and their children might suffer because his second marriage will be void. Where children are concerned, treating the decree as void will rarely protect their interests. On the other hand, if the decree is voidable, the court will be able to apply its sanction selectively in those cases where, for example, a party deserves punishment for misleading the

court, or a husband needs to have some pressure put on him to make proper financial provision for his first wife or their children.
The remaining amendments, contained in Articles 56, 58 and 61, are largely self-explanatory. Article 56 allows a husband to seek a magistrates' custody order for his children where his wife has deserted him and allows maintenance to be awarded for children on a wife's application even though she herself is debarred from any relief because of her adultery. Article 58 abolishes the practically obsolete actions for damages for the seduction or harbouring of a wife. Article 61 allows the remarriage of certain relations by affinity following divorce.
If the House approves the order, it will constitute a new basic code of divorce law for Northern Ireland. I believe that it will be a substantial improvement on existing law.
Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the thoughful and careful way in which he has presented the order. If ever an order should go through the full legislative process of Parliament, this one most emphatically should.
The proposals in the order arouse very strong feelings—I was going to say in all parts of the House, but perhaps that would be a little invidious in view of the empty Government Benches—which cut across party lines. Although I am speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I recognise that some Opposition Members will not agree with what I am about to say.
We approach the order from the same principle as that with which we approached the first order relating to company legislation. We believe that, unless there are over-riding reasons to the contrary, there is a strong argument for harmonising the law of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain.
The effect of the order is to replace the Matrimonial Causes Act (Northern Ireland) 1939, which related only to Northern Ireland, with what has become


the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The new grounds for divorce are set out in Section 1 of the 1973 Act. That section, reproduced in the order, substantially extends the grounds on which a divorce decree may be granted.
When the Divorce Reform Act 1969 was going through Parliament—long before I became a Member of this place—I was strongly opposed to it. I am a solicitor by profession. In the nine years which have passed since the Divorce Reform Act went on the statute book and in the five years which have passed since that Act was consolidated with and reenacted in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 my view has changed. I now believe—still with some misgivings—that the structure of our divorce law as set out in the 1973 Act is basically right.
I want to refer to two matters which the Minister mentioned in the closing passages of his speech. One concerns reconciliation. My experience is that Section 6(1) of the 1973 Act, which provides that a solicitor acting for a petitioner shall
certify whether he has discussed with the petitioners the possibility of a reconciliation and given him the names and addresses of persons qualified to help effect a reconciliation".
has been largely ineffective. Indeed, the Minister recognised that, because the Government do not propose to include a similar provision in the order.
Secondly, again with my experience as a solicitor over the past nine years, I welcome the refusal in the order to have a divorce decree pronounced without hearing evidence in person from the petitioner. I dislike the provisions of the 1973 Act which say that a decree can be granted in Great Britain without oral evidence being given by the petitioner. The proposal in the order is an improvement.
I wish to examine briefly the principal grounds for granting a decree. The provisions of the order are virtually identical to Section 1(2) of the 1973 Act. The test that before a decree of divorce can be granted the court must be satisfied that the marriage has broken down irretrievably is essentially right. The question then arises as to the circumstances in which the court shall be so satisfied. The order sets out five grounds and

reproduces them in substantially the same form as they appear in the 1973 Act.
There is one important difference. In the 1973 Act the first ground is that the respondent has committed adultery and that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. The corresponding provision in the order leaves out the words
and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent".
That is in a sense slightly inconsistent with the other provisions to which the Under-Secretary referred, because the provisions of this order, with the omission of those words, certainly mean to me that a court in Northern Ireland will be more readily satisfied that the marriage has broken down irretrievably following adultery than would be the case in Great Britain. I am not clear why the Government have decided to make that amendment.
The second ground, that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, reproduces Section 1(2)(b) of the 1973 Act. The Minister referred to the problem that would arise in the event of unsoundness of mind on the part of the respondent. The old Matrimonial Causes Act 1939 provided that a petition would be granted where the respondent
is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition".
I have never understood why the 1969 and 1973 Acts, and now this order, do not provide for the ground for divorce that was contained in the 1939 Northern Ireland and the pre-1969 Great Britain legislation.
For the reasons that the Minister explained, it would be possible to interpret Article 3(2)(b) of the order in such a way that unsoundness of mind did not amount to behavour which would grant the petitioner the ground for divorce that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
The next sub-paragraphs deal with desertion and with the case in which the parties to the marriage have lived continuously apart for at least two years and where the respondent consents to a decree being granted. That follows exactly the provisions of the 1973 Act.
No Government can ever stand aside or be neutral in the divorce laws of its country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the hon. Member will be dealing with this matter, but he will be aware that when the original Divorce Reform Act, as a Bill, was before the House, in 1968 to 1969, the Government of the day expressly declared that they were neutral in regard to the Bill, and declared it through the mouth of their Solicitor-General.

Mr. Gow: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of an event that took place before I inflicted myself upon this House. But I was certainly asserting the contrary proposition. I do not believe that a Government can stand aside or be neutral about the divorce laws of a country, because the consequences of the divorce laws of a country are very far-reaching indeed. It may be a tribute to the Under-Secretary that the speech that he made to the House this evening is in direct conflict with the views that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) reminds me were expressed in 1968 and 1969 by the then Solicitor-General. I disagree with the then Solicitor-General and I agree with the Under-Secretary. I repeat that I do not believe that a Government can stand aside from the divorce laws of a country.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would disagree with remarks that I would make from this Box. I recognise, of course, that that is so.
I welcome the order for two main reasons. I welcome it, first, because I believe that unless there are overriding reasons to the contrary, it is desirable that the law of Great Britain and the law of Northern Ireland should be the same. Secondly—and to this extent I am a convert—although I was opposed to the 1969 Act, the experience of operating that Act and a study of the circumstances in which that law has affected our society at home have led me to the view that basically the Act of 1973 has provided this country with a humane, sensible and practical divorce law. I say that as someone who has mercifully had no personal experience of divorce and who has, therefore, seen it only from a professional point of view.
For those reasons, I welcome the order. If there should be a Division upon it tonight, I shall vote in its support.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: It is a matter for very real regret that those hon. Members who occupied the Labour Benches during the debate on the previous order and who contributed, albeit in a rather negative fashion, to that debate have not felt able to be with us as we debate this order, and as we on the Opposition Benches assist Her Majesty's Government in seeking to improve the law as it affects a very large social area of life in Northern Ireland. If only those hon. Members could see their way to giving constant attention to their responsibilities we might find that the people of Northern Ireland would develop much more confidence in the capacity of this House to bring its beneficial and constructive influence to bear on their everyday lives.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have always recognised that this was a very significant item of social legislation on which there were very wide differences of opinion. They accepted the view that I expressed on behalf of the Unionist Parliamentary Party in a letter to the Secretary of State dated 21st July 1977, in which I expressed
the exceptional importance of carrying public opinion as far as possible with whatever it is eventually decided to do about the law in Northern Ireland on the subject of divorce.
At that time we also expressed our preference for a Bill which would undoubtedly have provided the necessary opportunity for public opinion to be educated and brought fully to bear, thus avoiding resentment and misunderstanding. However, one has to concede that the processing of this legislation has provided an outstanding example of the extent to which it is possible to modify, stretch and even exploit the Order in Council procedure. That in no way implies acceptance of the procedure as a permanent feature for the future government of our part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it strengthens the case for progression towards normal parliamentary legislative processes.
In his letter to me of 17th August 1977, the Secretary of State indicated—the Under-Secretary has reminded us of this tonight—that he had decided to extend the


normal period of consultation after the draft order had been published as proposals, and at that time he said that he would do all in his power to ensure that individuals and organisations as well as Members of Parliament would have the fullest opportunity to express their views.
Our Unionist Parliamentary Party made its contribution in the form of a conference on 30th March this year, and the Under-Secretary of State has referred to these activities, which not only enabled interested groups and individuals to convey their views to us but, equally important, provided groups representing different viewpoints with an opportunity to meet face to face and discuss their differences in a civilised manner. I think that that was of enormous benefit.
The conclusions of our conference were conveyed to the Minister, and they provided the basis for the detailed consultations after which he produced his printed paper listing what I call the 21 amendments. I think that I am right in saying that this was the first time that such a document had been produced, and I assure the Minister that we found it of great benefit and we hope that he has established a precedent and a pattern.
The 21 amendments met our submissions to such an extent that, as the Minister knows, we did not then consider it necessary to proceed with the plan for a sitting of the Northern Ireland Committee, and it has thus been possible to have this debate on the Floor well in advance of the end of the present Session.
We have taken great care to keep the general public informed about the progress made, and I am sure that the public share our astonishment at the red-hot news that the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland met the Minister only last week to offer belated advice on the contents of the order, already set down even at that time for debate today. What is more, I understand that the deputation demanded that the order should be approved by Parliament in the next Session.
Lest the Minister fears that he might have dozed off and missed out a whole year, let me comfort him with the news that the UPNI has a habit of getting its timescale wrong. For example, it recently announced that it would campaign at the next election for increased representation for Northern Ireland at Westminster. All

of this—I think, with respect, that this is where you come in, Mr. Deputy Speaker—leads me to conclude that, in the unlikely event of that party winning a seat. the Chair, I am afraid, will then have to adjust itself to working always from yesterday's Order Paper and relating debates to the contents of the Queen's Speech before the last one.

Mr. Dunn: In all honesty, I ought to put the record straight. What the Unionists, or a particular group of Unionists, asked me was when the operative date would be, and I said that it would be early next year. I do not wish to comment on the other matters. But that is a statement of fact, and I am obliged to make that statement in the House. The hon. Gentleman forces me.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister speaks of a certain type of Unionist. I would say a "peculiar type of Unionist". But we shall agree to differ.
We must place on record our view that, in principle, it is objectionable that law made in Great Britain on private Members' initiative, on a free vote and without Government responsibility, should be applied to Northern Ireland as an act of Government policy. But I do not wish to labour that point. I trust that the process will not become a habit.
However, to avoid Northern Ireland having again to catch up, we accept the intention to embody in this legislation those features already found desirable in English law. Secondly, we hope that the next legislation on this subject will extend with minor variations to the whole of the United Kingdom, the way having been prepared by this order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has contributed so much to the improvement of the order, will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give his views on various aspects of the legislation. I want to look briefly at the arguments which centre on grounds for divorce, and particularly the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
I am glad that the Minister has already said that that phrase cannot be used as a kind of shibboleth. The claim of the breakdown has to be supported by facts, and a combination of facts and


common sense is vastly preferable to acting out charades and engaging in deception—practices which unfortunately have been made necessary by the current legislation. The proper balance seems to have been struck, and if properly presented should remove the false impression that under English law divorce is automatic and can be obtained on the casual say-so of one of the partners.
I am also glad that the Minister has stressed that there will be no special procedure in Northern Ireland. He has provided for that situation in Article 3(3). I almost used the phrase "special category", but I leave that to some of my happily married friends to take up at a later date.
Article 8 provides for the encouragement of reconciliation. The possibility of reconciliation should be kept in mind at all stages and as far as possible we should delay the point of no return at least until the final legal stage. It is sensible to remove the bars to reconciliation which exist in the present legislation under which the mere coming together to discuss the possibility can be enough to justify the rejection of a petition.
I welcome also the dropping of the requirement in English law for solicitors to certify that they have discussed the possibility of reconciliation with the partners. I have always thought that that provision was nonsense, and in practice it has proved a non-starter. It involved the legal profession in a world of make-believe. I have no doubt that some of them were well rewarded for engaging in a task which should not have been theirs. They are not fitted or trained for the role of marriage guidance counsellors. After all, if solicitors the world over developed the art of reconciliation to perfection, they would soon make themselves redundant.
I have said that this is a subject on which there are sincerely held opposing views. That division is reflected in the ranks of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. In a free vote such as we shall have tonight, those differences may be expressed in the Lobbies.
I close with a purely personal view. I am sure that we are all mindful of our responsibility in debating this issue—to weigh our words carefully and to ponder

the outcome of our decisions. It would be impossible, surely, to overstate the importance of the survival of the family unit in relation to the survival of civilised society as we know it. However, it would clearly be unwise to assume that by mere legislation we can build or sustain the type of society in which the vast majority would choose to live.
We cannot legislate for righteousness. Simply to preserve a tough and unyielding divorce law will not compel couples to honour their matrimonial obligations. We are talking here of far deeper things—of principle, honour, integrity and loyalty. We who are privileged to serve in this House may strive to inspire and encourage these qualities; sad though it may be, we cannot legislate for them.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: There are important matters to which we must return albeit in the face of a comprehensive and detailed presentation by the Minister. I should like to make two prefactory comments. First, we are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for affording us a considerable period of time in which to look at his proposed draft, to submit ideas, suggestions, proposals and amendments and to review his comments on them before coming to this stage of our proceedings. We are grateful for the sensitive way in which he has received our views, knowing that this matter is vital to the people of Northern Ireland and sharing our view that it is unfortunate that legislation should proceed in this way on such a vital matter. We understand that the constitutional context is not of his making, and we believe that his sympathy and sensitivity are such as to afford us a greater measure of consultation than might have been afforded by someone else.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that we have to make a decision on the basis of the order as a whole because in the minds of some of us there is a conflict. There is the obvious need to improve those provisions which relate to the financial wellbeing of those who are caught up in the dreadful trauma of divorce. There is the need to deal with the plight of the children. There are all the property considerations. All those improvements and the provisions relating to the improvements have our wholehearted support.
The conflict arises when we turn to the first few pages of the order because for some of us the grounds for divorce now proposed cause a great deal of concern. By opposing those provisions we may be giving the impression that we are opposing the improvements in the financial provisions and those articles which relate to the wellbeing and the welfare of the children. Such is the nonsense of proceeding by way of Order in Council in a fundamental issue of this nature.
Before moving on to some of the provisions—I shall not traverse the territory covered so ably by the Under-Secretary of State—I should like to ask the Minister whether he would care to say a word or two at the end of the debate about legal aid. He omitted to refer to legal aid in his introductory speech, and we feel that this is a vital consideration in divorce proceedings. It may be that we are meant to infer from Article 3(3) that, because oral testimony is vital in divorce proceedings in Northern Ireland, legal aid will be available. However it is the case that in England legal aid has been withdrawn from all undefended divorce cases. Will the Minister return to this question of legal aid and confirm that, because of this article, legal aid will be available in Northern Ireland in every circumstance?
I come now to Article 3(d). Here we read:
that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years".
Under the Matrimonial Causes Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 the period was three years. I do not believe that it is helpful to reduce the period of separation since I do not believe that we should reduce the opportunities for renewed attempts at reconcilation. The reduction of this period is not a helpful provision.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who said that he was relieved to know that a "quickie" divorce by post would not be available in Northern Ireland. I know that we have the full-hearted support of the Minister in making that point.
Turning now to reconcilation, we agree that the provisions available under the 1973 legislation, whereby a solicitor had to sign a document establishing that he had endeavoured to reconcile the parties,

was a nonsense. This order has been more realistic than that. We congratulate the Minister on taking into account the comments we submitted on this point, particularly in the light of the unanimous voice, not only of our conference, but of the conference to which the Minister referred which took place at Queen's University, Belfast.
Turning to the statutory charges provision, we found, having consulted every interested body, that there was concern for the spouse who might be deprived of his or her part in the property of the home. It has in the past taken only a little subtlety to produce deprivation in this respect. We are please that Article 39(2)(a) enables the securing of property and the securing of the financial resources of a home for the spouse who feels that a subtle attempt to deprive him or her will not now be possible because of this legislation.
I come now to the main burden of my speech, which is to voice my concern about the grounds for divorce as outlined in Article 3, namely that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. When the change in the legislation took place here in 1969, a useful series of articles appeared in the national Press. But it is not just upon those that I base the comments which I am about to make. I speak not only as one whose interest is in good law but as one who has some experience of the social and family pressures, having dealt with those in a pastoral context. I have instinctively recoiled from any legislation which has made divorce much easier and which has made reconciliation either unattractive or not worthwhile.
As I tried to articulate my own concern about the 1969 and 1973 legislation, I was delighted to learn that many eminent divines on both sides of the water, and many experienced judges, also agreed. In the case of Northern Ireland, a former Lord Chief Justice articulated my concern far more eloquently and cogently than ever I could have done. To the comments of the divines on both sides of the water was added recently the comments of an eminent judge here. His comment that one out of every two marriages was now breaking down was challenged by groups with vested interests. Although that statistic was challenged,


and possibly still could be challenged, the fact of life is that divorce in this part of the kingdom is now far easier to obtain, and this has reflected on the stability of marriage.
It is, therefore, vital for us to concern ourselves not only with good law but with moral law. I cannot be dissuaded that the 1969 and 1973 legislation conditioned people to the possibility of temporary marriages. That argument is beyond peradventure. Young people now know that even if they make a solemn vow in church or before a registrar, there is the possibility—if the words of the eminent judge are correct, almost the expected result—that one in every two marriages will flounder in their very early stages. If there is not in fact a conditioning, albeit unwittingly, by bad legislation, that marriages are expected to be temporary affairs, at least I believe this legislation affords the possibility that young people will be given the opportunity to sever the marriage prematurely. In reducing the period from three years to two in respect of separation and, in the case of the 1969 and 1973 legislation, in respect of cruelty, I believe that we have made the possibility of reconciliation more difficult and we have limited the opportunities of perpetuating the marriage in a way that is unhelpful for the parties concerned and for society as a whole.
But perhaps one of the most serious criticisms which could be levelled not only at this legislation but at the legislation which exists in this part of the kingdom is that we have now afforded the unfaithful and—let us not shy away from the expression—the guilty party the right to take the initiative. Some people may abhor reference to the guilty party, but guilt orientation is still implicit in the legislation on this side of the water. Certainly it is implicit in the legislation enshrined in this order. Although there is this movement away from the word "guilt" and the concept of guilt orientation, they still exist and are implied in the legislation. However, in this order we have provided the unfaithful, the guilty party, with the right to take the initiative to dissolve the marriage. This is done by the five-year provision which does not need consent.
For the life of me, I cannot believe that that is natural justice or justice of

any kind. Certainly it is not good law. Certainly it is not moral law. Therefore, I feel that the very pertinent observations of the previous Archbishop of Canterbury and the commission which was inaugurated in 1955 were not given due weight when the legislation was introduced here in 1969 and again when this House considered the consolidation legislation in 1973.
I move on to the courts dealing with uncorroborated evidence with the respondent absent from the trial and, of course, in the case of the legislation here, when no one is present at the trial. The judge and the court face the dreadful possibility of reaching a decision without any evidence which can be corroborated being exposed to scrutiny and examination. I do not believe that there should be divorce without both sides of the matter being ventilated. Yet in this legislation we have that opportunity. I do not believe that that is fair to the courts or to the judiciary, and I do not think that it is good jurisprudence.
This legislation provides very important safeguards for the children of a marriage, and I am delighted with Article 44 and those which follow it because they go much further to safeguard children than any other legislation in any other part of the kingdom. For that I believe we should be grateful, and again we express our gratitude to the Minister for concentrating on this vital area in the serious matter of divorce.
I conclude by making one observation which may not be supported by my colleagues, but I believe it is one reason why I shall have to vote against this legislation. It is not Parliament's job to make it easy for any couple who have made a vow in a church to break that vow. I do not suggest that we should return to the pre-nineteenth century arrangement where only the ecclesiastical courts could decide on divorce proceedings. That created the elitism to which we are all opposed. However, I believe that we are in dangerous waters when Parliament takes it upon itself to make it easy for people who, within the terms of reference of the word of God on divorce, marriage and the wonderful matter of living together and perpetuating creation, seek to undermine that promise, vow or institution so that a marriage is eventually dissolved. I refer to occasions


when such action is in direct contravention to the terms of reference for a Christian marriage—that is to say, the word of God.
That argument may sound somewhat esoteric and may not engender a great deal of support on either side of the House, but I believe that it is an argument which this House should hear. I believe that because we have ignored that view, it has caused the fabric of society to become unstable. The institution of marriage has been in danger of becoming temporary and transitory, and unfortunately it is being tragically undermined.
Although I am grateful for the hard work which the Minister has undertaken in producing this order, and although I agree that many of these provisions will improve the lot of those who have been hard done by in the past, I feel that I must oppose the order because I do not believe that irretrievable breakdown should be regarded as the best ground for divorce.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: The pressure for changes in divorce law in the present social climate is not unexpected. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) that marriage is an institution that should not be changed purely and simply because of passing fashion in human affairs. I believe that we should ask what society is seeking and what it needs. These are not necessarily the same thing, but I believe that Northern Ireland society wants to preserve the traditional attitude to marriage. Perhaps we are different in this respect from the rest of the United Kingdom, but I believe in my bones that the people of Northern Ireland wish to preserve that tradition.
The people of Northern Ireland wish to preserve the traditional attitude to marriage because in Ireland as a whole the family is regarded as the basic unit of society and as a unit which must be preserved. People in Northern Ireland believe that that unit in society cannot be preserved by weakening the bonds of marriage.
I also wish to direct attention to the opinions of Lord MacDermott on Lord Dunleath's Bill. A great deal of what was said by Lord MacDermott in respect

of that legislation can be said of this order. I agree with Lord MacDermott, who seemed to consider the family unit as a sheltering rock which we must preserve if we are to have a stable society and a stable country.
I do not agree with the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a basis for divorce. It raises a very serious question concerning blame, and the attitude taken in the order that it is impossible to apportion blame is humbug and nonsense. I believe that there is blame. I know that it can be deeply buried and may not be easy to unearth and that it may simply be behaviour by one individual which grated on the other's nerves and made it impossible for them to live together, but at some point something happens in a marriage which starts the slide down the slippery slope to divorce.
While we may try to avoid the concept of apportioning blame, we shall find increasingly that when a marriage is dissolved and the property has to be shared out, we shall inevitably see the apportioning of blame, whether we like it or not.
The ideal of marriage for life is rarely as happy as it is supposed to be, but even when a marriage is unhappy, we should try to preserve it, improve what is left and build upon it. Hon. Members often see the results of broken marriages and we wonder why common sense does not prevail. If there were better guidance when difficulties arose and if the Churches could be involved—and this may be easier to achieve in a society such as that in Northern Ireland than it is in Great Britain—many marriages would not break down.
I believe that husbands and wives who are going down that slippery slope often discount the lessons they have learned through overcoming obstacles in the past. There is a danger in believing that all is lost before all possible paths of reconciliation have been tried and, above all, there is often a lack of willingness to try again. Often, if one last genuine effort were made, the marriage would survive, grow and be better than it was before.
I welcome the possibility of referring people in danger of divorce to social workers, but again I make a plea that efforts should be made to involve the Churches because no institution in the community


is more deeply involved in broken marriages. People are married in churches and I believe that most clergymen are delighted when they have the opportunity to preserve a marriage.
We are forgetting that a marriage is not only a bond before God but a contract between two people to live as one and to share everything they have. That is something that young people, especially, often lose sight of, and I sometimes wonder whether the schools, particularly secondary schools, do not have a role to play in the preparation for marriage among the boys and girls committed to their care. Unfortunately, this matter is ignored in education today.
In all that I have said, I am not unaware of the need to safeguard wives and children after a marriage has broken down. I welcome the changes that have been made to look after children. Those changes refer only to the material needs of divorced people and they could have been ealt with by amending the existing law in respect of the material things of life, rather than through the order and the legislation in Great Britain which strike at the roots of our society by eroding respect for marriage and the marriage vows and bond. I believe that the fundamental change at the centre of the order is one that we shall deeply regret and that will bear bitter fruits for society in future.

9.55 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We from Northern Ireland, as a result of the Order in Council procedure, have to deal with matters that affect the whole of our society. We are dealing with issues that run right into the basic unit of society—the family. I am becoming alarmed that we are now almost conceding that the consultation before an Order in Council is laid is almost as good as a proper parliamentary debate and the production of a Bill that passes through the proper legislative machinery.
I am afraid that more and more in Northern Ireland the elected representatives and the proper parliamentary procedure no longer produce laws. Instead we have Orders in Council in draft form, consultation, a final draft and a short debate in the House. I know that today there has been more time because of the procedure adopted. However, with all the

time that can be given to us there is no possibility for an hon. Member to move an amendment or to do anything to change the order. It must either be passed as it is or voted against. We must stress that this type of legislation should be produced not in the House but before a devolved Parliament of Northern Ireland, where the elected representatives of Northern Ireland could debate the issues.
I have been in the Chamber for most of the debate. If Northern Ireland Members were discounted, there were times when there was only the Minister and one Labour Member on the Government Benches. I do not blame Labour Members as they have other considerations to which they must attend. This legislation in no way affects any of their constituencies. It has nothing to do with the future of their constituents. Why should they take time off from their other duties to listen to a debate that does no concern them and their constituents?
We are reaching the stage in Northern Ireland where this sort of legislation will have to be postponed until the political situation has settled, until we know whether we shall have a devolved Parliament and Government of our own so that these matters may be dealt with by the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people who will know exactly what the people require.
It is an impossible task for the Under-Secretary of State to gauge the opinion of people in Northern Ireland by means of the consultative procedure. I accept that amendments have been made. Many of the amendments were extremely good as far as they went. Consultation has been long and many parties have met the Minister. I know that while representing my party I met the Minister for a long time, had long discussions with him and went over the ground.
We heard from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) the consultations that the United Ulster Unionist Party had on this matter. But that is not proper parliamentary representation. That is not what goes into producing good laws for the country. We cannot dispense with the legislative machinery in that manner.
I do not want to press this matter, but I feel that it must be ventilated so that the House may understand the feeling of people in Northern Ireland. We find that


we cannot by our vote say to the people of Northern Ireland that we approve of the good things in the order. There are good things in it. I have spent 32 years in the city of Belfast in pastoral work. I have officiated at hundreds of marriage services. I have a large congregation. Therefore, I understand how people feel. I deal with these matters all the time.
The one person who needs to be defended in a broken marriage is the child. From the depth of my heart I welcome every provision which will safeguard the child, for the child must be safeguarded in the terrible calamity when the family is divided. It is a traumatic experience for the child. Its loyalties to its mother and father are natural. The division of the home is a serious matter. I also welcome adequate provision for the mother in these circumstances. I believe that these provisions need to be made.
However, because of the basic principle of the order with which I disagree, I must vote with those of my colleagues who will express their opposition in the Lobbies. Why must we do it? The hon. Member for Antrim, South said that it was not for us to legislate righteousness. That is right. But it is for us to legislate right laws—a very different mattter.
What is right? There is something radically wrong with this nation. There has been a departure from those principles which made this nation great. That has been conceded from all sources. We want to see something in this nation which will bring back those principles which made the nation great.
I am arguing not about some new imperialism, but about moral standards, right conduct, human sympathy and all those things which went into the building of the social structure of our society. I am talking about those who pioneered prison reform, the care of widows and orphans and other things which made this nation really great. We know that something is wrong.
When we examine our society, we must examine the basic unit—the family. Something is wrong with the family. The foundation of the family is the sacredness of the marriage bond. I think that we would be better employed in buttressing, reinforcing and strengthening that sacred bond than in undermining and

demolishing it. That is why hon. Members have to make and have made speeches in strong terms.
It is all very well for the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to talk of the harmonisation of laws in Northern Ireland with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will freely admit that a different attitude prevails in Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the United Kingdom on many matters, including marriage and divorce.
There still is in Northern Ireland—this applies to the whole of the island of Ireland—a strong conviction among Protestants and Roman Catholics alike that marriage cannot and must not be undermined, and that it should be for life. It is a common principle that is held far more strongly in Northern Ireland than in this part of the United Kingdom.
On a Sunday morning more people will be in their places of worship in Northern Ireland than are there on this side of the water. That is because the Christian principles prevail in their minds and in their upbringing, and even among people who have perhaps forsaken the church to which their fathers belonged this strong principle has followed. They still want a church marriage. They still want to believe that marriage is not something to be lightly and unadvisedly entered into but should be approached reverently, discreetly and in the fear of God.
The House needs to take account of this fact. It ill becomes any hon. Member here to try to tell us that on a matter such as this there must be harmonisation. On the matter of homosexuality there is a great difference of opinion in Northern Ireland between those who accept it and those who reject it. That difference cuts across the political and religious divides.
It is not therefore a matter of considering this matter in the Great Britain context and saying that it is good for Britain and that therefore it will be all right for Northern Ireland. There are differences in the laws that apply to different parts of the country—even in Scotland. That point needs to be underlined tonight.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made that statement loud and clear in a consultative document about family law reform in which I clearly


stated that what is necessarily good law for one part of the United Kingdom is not necessarily good law for another part, particularly for Northern Ireland. I am on the record in that respect.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the Minister took that opportunity to put his point to the House. I entirely agree with him.
I now come to the heart of the matter which rests upon the question whether there is a guilty party in the break-up of home and marriage. The order attempts to say that there is no guilty party. It was strange to hear the Minister say in his opening remarks that there should be punishment for a party that misleads the court with the possibility of indictment for the offence. That party does a far more grievous act if it is unfaithful to its partner. If one party commits a crime against its offspring, or is guilty of violating a solemn pledge that was voluntarily taken, evidently no guilt is to be imputed to that party. I find that very strange reasoning. As far as the court is concerned, it is punishable for misleading the court, but in a contract that is far more precious and sacred than any court of law, no matter how dignified, he is to have no guilt whatsoever.
Let us take this matter a step further. The marriage bond in this country may be enacted in a church ceremony, but it still rests upon the civil authority to approve of it, so it is basically a civil contract to which the State is a party, for the State sets down certain conditions, certain regulations and certain matters that must be attended to and adhered to. If those matters are not attended to and they are serious matters, the marriage is reckoned to be null and void. Therefore, there is a contract. It is a contract not only between the two contracting parties but between them and the State, as the body that draws up the terms of that contract.
If this were any other contract, if, for instance, I did not tax my car—we have many very efficient wardens in Belfast who will put a label on one's untaxed car, Mr. Speaker, although I am sure that it has never happened to you—I would be called to answer. What for? For breaking a contract. One is obliged to tax one's car.
But here, on a matter that affects the well-being of the party who has been seriously offended and affects the well-being of the children of the family, if there be children of the family, and affects the whole of society because the family is the basic unit of society, we in this House are saying "It does not matter. You can tear up that contract. There is no guilt whatsoever, and the person who commits adultery is as innocent in relation to these divorce proceedings as the person who keeps his faithfulness and fidelity."
Furthermore, when it comes to the reckoning of the apportionment of an estate, the matter of the matrimonial offence and matrimonial guilt will not be considered. To me, that opens a very wide door.
It has been argued—I am rather amazed that it has been argued in this House—that there have been set-ups of adultery, connived at adultery, and that this was done in order to get divorces. It was the duty of the courts to deal with connived at adultery. How will they deal with it under this leglislation if they could not deal with it under the previous legislation? The Minister made a quite lengthy statement about attempts to deceive the courts. If the courts in Northern Ireland were deceived in the way in which the tenor of some of the remarks in the debate suggests, surely the courts were at fault in not seeing that it was adultery and that it was adultery within the meaning of the legislation, and not connived at adultery. They had a responsibility to do something about it. I find it very hard to give any credence whatsoever to that reasoning when we come to this very important matter.
Let us take the matter of cruelty behaviour. If a man beats up his wife and beats up the family, is there not some guilt there? Is there not some offence there? Has not that man something to answer for? Under this legislation, he has not. He is not a guilty party. There is no guilt. No one is guilty. The family will be broken up, but there is no guilty party.
What about the other part where a man deserts his spouse? On the other hand, what of the mother who leaves her family and children? Anyone who knows of these things understands what a heartbreak that can be. Children want their


mother, and the mother does not return. I have been in homes where young children cried for their mother to come, but she had gone. It is hard to explain to a child what will happen. Has that woman no guilt? Or, on the other hand, when a husband forsakes his responsibilities, is there no guilt?
The House should direct its mind to these matters. If we cannot legislate righteousness, at least we can legislate right laws which will put the matter into its proper perspective.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) raised the important issue that the person who has been guilty may now institute the proceedings and take the steps which eventually procure the divorce. There is no doubt that this legislation offers an easy road to divorce.
But there is something which worries me far more, and that is the fact that this legislation conditions young people not to face their responsibilities for life. A young person can say "I am getting married, but in two years, or five years, I can get out of it." It is that conditioning which is the danger. If, as one learned judge said, one out of every two marriages on this side of the water could go on the rocks, I dread to think what society will be like.
The Minister gave us some figures. I believe that he said that there were 700 divorces last year, and he then told us of the figures before that. We can see how the figures are escalating. In my talk with him, the Minister admitted to me that, as the pressures would go on, there could even be a greater easing in the divorce law. We are here tonight, of course, because of pressures. That is why this legislation has been brought forward.
We must be prepared to buttress the family, to strengthen and to undergird marriage, doing everything in our power to save marriages. Thank God, marriages can be saved. Even those of which one has almost despaired can be built upon again. We should be setting our strength as a Parliament behind a campaign to build up the family, not to destroy it—

to buttress the sacred tie of marriage, to strengthen the knot, not to loosen it. That is our duty.
There is in Northern Ireland a great feeling that this is a proposal which runs against the whole ethic of the Ulster people. It is not for the betterment of our society. I have already made my position clear, as have my colleagues. There are provisions in this legislation which we need. I believe, of course, that we could have had a different Order in Council to help the child and to ease the responsibilities of those who have economic hardship, but the order is tied in with another principle, and that principle, I believe, cannot be accepted.
Although the hon. Member for Belfast, South may not have many other supporters for the view which he expressed, I agree with his sentiments. Christian marriage is a thing of human sympathy and compassion. The most sympathetic figure who ever walked this world was the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that He knew the strains, stresses and hardship which men and women, sinners by birth and practice, have to endure in this life, and He knew what was right for the people of this earth. He set out the only conditions on which the marriage bond could be broken—not with the consent of God's law, but by permission, because of the infidelity of a person who broke the most solemn contract. It cannot be true to say that we are unsympathetic because we take the view of the one who was the most sympathetic person of all.
I want to see children, wives and husbands helped in their difficulty, but this is not the way to help them. I trust that in the vote tonight, which we will not win—but good causes have to fight for a long time before they are carried—we shall show that there are still people in this House who believe in the sacredness of the marriage bond and want the family to return to those great principles that our families had in the past and which made this nation the nation that it has been.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I congratulate the Minister on the remarkable speech with which he introduced the order. It was remarkable for its comprehensiveness and clarity and it was quite clear that he was not, as is often unavoidable for Ministers, simply reading what others had written. For many months the Minister has made this subject his own. The order which he has presented to the House bears clearly the impress of his own work and of his own views and wishes.
Reference has already been made to the extensive and lengthy consultations, both between the Government and hon. Members and much more widely in the Province, since these proposals were first announced eight months ago. Certainly it would be impossible, I should have thought, within the narrow and constraining limits of the procedure by Order in Council, for opinion to be more sensitively gauged and tapped than has happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred to one of the many conferences on this subject in Northern Ireland—that organised by the Ulster Unionist Party. From that, in which widely opposite, indeed conflicting, views were expressed, emerged a number of definite proposals for the alteration of the order as it then was. In its original form, the order was virtually a reproduction of the 1973 consolidating Act for the law in England and Wales. I think that I am right in saying that every one of the suggestions which emerged from that conference and which were thrown into legislative propositions by my hon. Friends and myself have—either in the form in which they were put forward or, I may say, in a better and more suitable form—found a place in the draft order as it has finally been put before the House tonight.
So this is not a mere reproduction, a mere application to Northern Ireland, of the law as it applies to England and Wales. It is at any rate a genuinely Northern Ireland version of the law of Great Britain in this respect, and it bears the impress of Northern Ireland opinion.
What is more, any hon. Member who heard the Minister's exposition will be pretty convinced that the legislation which

this order creates will be superior in form to that which applies in Great Britain. Indeed, in a number of respects —I shall mention only one—I believe it is destined to be the model for future reform of the law—and it will not be a loosening of the law—in Great Britain.
The one respect to which I wish specifically to refer—I want to avoid repeating the many important alterations of the original proposals which the Minister listed in his speech and which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South—is Article 43 taken in conjunction with Article 44. The germ of that article, to which nothing in the 1973 Act corresponds, was the general dissatisfaction, when we came to consider this legislation from the point of view of Northern Ireland, with the pure humbug of the English provision for reconciliation. From that came the notion that, instead of that purely formal and unrealistic procedure, there should be some genuine attempt, if not to reconcile, at any rate to rescue from a breaking or broken marriage what was important both in the continuing arrangements between the former partners and, above all, for the children of the marriage. Knowing as I do that the Minister had a considerable personal hand in the framing of that article, I would say that he probably looks tonight upon Articles 43 and 44 of the order with as much satisfaction as upon any of his political work. So, we have not just the extension to Northern Ireland of law uniform with that in Great Britain. We have a substantial improvement upon it, an improvement in which along with many others, I have taken my part. Yet I shall vote against the order when the Division comes at the end of the debate. I shall do so despite my strong belief that, wherever possible, unless a contrary case can be made out, the law in Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom ought to be uniform with the law in Great Britain, uniform in principle and, unless there be contrary reason, uniform in detail. Nevertheless, I conceive it to be right to vote against the order. [Interruption.] I will give the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) no cause for jollity or amusement.

Mr. Fitt: I was waiting for the convoluted argument.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Member will listen instead of making an ass of himself on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Fitt: Do not lose your temper now.

Mr. Powell: I shall vote against the order because the setting of this order, and the proposal to apply the law of Great Britain in this way to Northern Ireland, have no parallel in the other cases that have come before the House.

Mr. Fitt: Seat belts.

Mr. Powell: There is no parallel in the other cases that have come before the House.
This legislation began in England and Wales with a Private Member's Bill introduced in 1968. During the passage of that Bill the Government declared through the mouth of the Solicitor-General, that they were entirely neutral in the matter. It was a matter wholly for the House; there was no question of the authority of Government; there was no Whip; it was not a policy of the Government. It was for the House of Commons, as a House of Commons, to decide whether and in what form it wished to pass that Bill.
The principles of that Act, and nearly all the details, were subsequently applied to Scotland by another Private Member's Bill, for which, similarly, no Government responsibility was taken, and which was also passed as a matter of individual conscience by hon. Members.
I say that it is unacceptable that law which has been made for Great Britain by free vote of the House, with the Government of the day—in both cases they happened to be Labour Governments—disclaiming all responsibility, should be applied to Northern Ireland by a Government order, for which the Government take responsibility. So far as I know, they have the Whips on, although that is not material to my argument.
It is wrong in principle that that which in Great Britain is a matter of conscience and can be got through only as a matter of conscience should not be a matter of conscience when it is applied to Northern Ireland, but that its application is treated as so automatic that it ought to be done and can be done by the fiat of the Government.
There is an alternative course that can be taken—indeed, that would have been taken, if the Government had not proceeded in this way. When it was desired by a majority—not by all—in Scotland to have the law in Scotland changed as it had been changed in England and Wales, a private Member, indeed a number of private Members, came forward with a Private Member's Bill. The law reached the statute book as a Private Member's Bill, voted upon or accepted not as a matter of Government policy but as a matter of the free decision of the House. If there was pressure of opinion, if the Government considered that it was desirable, for the law in Northern Ireland not to remain out of touch with that in Great Britain, I am sure that there would have been no difficulty. There would have been those who would have wished to put legislation forward to be considered upon its merits in the House, by the House. That alternative procedure was always available, and it was the only right procedure.
This has had another, incidental, consequence. Reference has been made to the fact that during this debate, unlike the previous one, almost only Northern Ireland Members have been present in the Chamber. You may be sure of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the change in the law of Northern Ireland was being proposed in a Private Member's Bill, there would have been a considerable attendance on both sides of the Chamber and both sides of the argument at any stage when decisions had to be taken.
So not only have we infringed what I would have thought was an obvious constitutional and moral principle, namely, that what is a matter of conscience in Great Britain ought also to be a matter of conscience in Northern Ireland, but if we had used Private Member's Bill procedure we should have engaged the interest and concern and responsibility of the whole House in what we were doing.
In 1968–69 I voted against the Second and Third Readings of the Bill for England and Wales. Unlike the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)— whom the absurdity of sending the Finance Bill into Committee on afternoons and evenings has prevented from remaining on the Opposition Front Bench to hear the rest of the debate which he


inaugurated—I have not changed my mind. There are two grounds on which I voted against the Bill then and will vote against the order now.
Reference has been made to marriage as an institution. Marriage is not only an institution, but the description "institution" marks an essential part of its nature. Those who are married in church are married
in the sight of God and in the face of this congregation".
That is to say, it is not only a religious act in which they are joined together, it is also a social act, an act in which they are going to be sustained by society, by those who have witnessed it as representatives of the entire society which maintains and approves that institution. Part of the essence of marriage is to be institutional, and it is the nature of that institution, the assumptions by which their estate is surrounded in the society where they live, which sustain the man and the woman in each individual marriage.
The assumption by which marriage has been sustained hitherto is that it is to be permanent. This legislation inverts that assumption. Legislation which makes it possible for a marriage to be regarded after two years separation as irretrievably broken down and proper to be dissolved by law, has abandoned the assumption that marriage is to be permanent and has substituted the assumption that marriage is revocable. The whole institutional framework of marriage is therefore threatened by the change in the law which was made in 1969.
My other reason is this: I believe that an unhappy marriage, a bad marriage, an unsuccessful marriage, is still far better for the children than a marriage which is dissolved. Obviously I do not state that as an absolute rule to which I believe there would be no exceptions but I am convinced that in the overwhelming majority of cases, so long as the children are young, the holding together of a marriage, however unsatisfactory—I even dare say, however unfaithful or unhappy—is better for those children than the dissolution of the framework of the family itself.
When we say that such debates as this and the corresponding debates for Great Britain are debates of conscience and, therefore, debates for free vote, that

means that in them we are expressing, each individually and each personally, our prejudices and our beliefs. Since I intend to vote against this measure, I have explained not only why politically I can do so consistently with my other political beliefs and opinions but also why those non-political beliefs and opinions which obliged me to vote as I did in 1969 oblige me to vote as I shall tonight.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I intervened only briefly. I understand the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), although I do not fully accept them, about this being a Government-sponsored piece of legislation in contrast to the divorce reform in Great Britain which was initiated by Private Members' Bills. But here we have a piece of legislation which will give comfort to many husbands and wives whose marriage has irretrievably broken down and who are suffering as a consequence.
I understood what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about it being better for the children's sake that an unhappy marriage should continue. But there are many cases where husbands have maltreated their wives brutally and the wives have put up with it on the basis that their marriages ought to continue because the Church says so. In the same way, wives may drive their husbands to behaviour which subsequently they regret and those husbands may put up with their marriages because they believe that for the sake of public appearance the marriages should continue. But in many of those cases it is better for the children that the marriages should come to an end and the spouses separated than that they should continue their brutal battle in the presence of those children, who are not unaffected by what goes on in their presence.
It is many years since the first Matrimonial Causes Act passed through this House in 1854. A member of the Commission which preceeded that Act, Lord Redesdale, said:
The law of England which now holds the marriage tie to be indissoluble should remain unaltered… The practice of passing exceptional laws in favour of particular cases should henceforth be discontinued.
He believed that there should be no divorce at all. That perhaps would have


been all right if no one could get a divorce. But the law was unfair because the very wealthy could come to this Parliament and obtain a special Act of Parliament which would divorce them from their spouse. There was one law for the rich, and another for the poor or not so rich. It did not matter whether the marriage was causing great agony. Anyone who had the money could come here and get a divorce. Anyone who did not have the money had to suffer. That was wrong. It is still wrong.
I remember the remarks made about those private Acts of Parliament, and they created anomalies which should not have been allowed to exist then, and certainly they should not have been allowed to continue to exist in the legislation which followed that 1854 Act of Parliament. Nevertheless it was established prior to 1854 that there could be different standards for people this country. That is reprehensible.
The opposition to the 1854 Bill—and it is well to remember it before the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) leaves the Chamber, since he is the sole Liberal Member present at the moment —was led by Mr. Gladstone. He said that the Bill
was fraught with danger to the highest interests of religion and the morality of the people",
and he argued at length in Parliament from the scriptures, no doubt like my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and from the teachings of the Church for the absolute indissolubility of marriage. The Liberal Party has moved on from those days, though it now has in its ranks the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who in a recent outburst about the people of Northern Ireland showed that he needed a rest from his parliamentary activities.
We had a number of attempts to reform the divorce law. In 1937, we had another Matrimonial Causes Act—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would like to return to the place where he has no doubt spent some considerable time this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I think that it will help the

House immeasurably if there are no sedentary interventions.

Mr. Kilfedder: Having spent some time elsewhere, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Belfast, West is now very spirited.
A. P. Herbert, as he was then, in putting forward his Bill, which was long overdue to correct the law—which continued the anomalies by which the wealthy could get divorce and those who were not wealthy would usually have to do without—said that as the law stood then, those who wished to bring an end to marriage were forced to take one of two alternatives; they must either commit adultery and provide a ground for divorce to their partner or they must commit perjury.
That is not what we would recommend as a basis for the law which was supposed to have the respect of the people. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know which way the hon. Member for Belfast, West will vote tonight, but I do not believe he should decide where he will go in the Division Lobby until he has gone out into the cold air.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not make comments about another hon. Member. I appealed for no sedentary interventions. I do not think there should be any reactions to them either.

Mr. Kilfedder: The question we have to ask is how much misery must a partner or spouse suffer before he can get a divorce. How much misery must be inflicted on him or her, and how far should the law perpetuate a marriage which has irretrievably broken down and is no longer anything but a burden to the husband or the wife, who may have found someone else and who may wish to have the blessing of a legal union. The purpose of divorce reform is to treat with compassion—that is all I ever ask for these people caught up in this difficult situation—those who are suffering from acute matrimonial difficulties.
Divorce does not create a decline in moral standards, but weakened moral standards have weakened the stability of marriage itself. It is the permissive society and not divorce reform which is the cause of the present unease.
I intend to vote for this order even though I regret that it is not possible to


move amendments to it. That is the worst aspect of direct rule—that we cannot move amendments to draft orders. I regret it because there are a number of matters which I should have liked to put forward as amendments. None the less, this is a piece of legislation which will do good. For that reason I recommend it.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: This is one of the most difficult problems to which I have had to address my mind for a long time, because it touches on the conscience, but as well as a matter of conscience, it is a matter of law, and a matter of fundamental human rights guaranteed by the law.
I found the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell) persuasive and understandable. On the other hand, I look back on my past experience as a solicitor and on the unique privilege and intimacy which exists between solicitor and client, and I remember the enormous tragedies and difficulties that arise out of a marriage which has really broken down. My difficulty is that I feel that people who go before the Church and undertake obligations cannot expect the law to absolve them from their obligations. On the other hand, I do not think that marriage is necessarily an institution of the Church. It is an institution of society regulated by law. Whether we like it or not, or whatever our convictions may be, in my judgment a great many of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Ulster have come to accept that it is more of a civil contract than it is a religious relationship.
In support of that view, I draw attention to the remarkable increase in the number of divorces in Northern Ireland that took place when legal aid was introduced. One can only draw the conclusion that if it had not been for the financial barrier the divorce rate over a long period in Northern Ireland would have been very much higher than it was.
I believe that at present marriages are being forced to carry on simply because the law is inadequate. It is inadequate to such an extent that it is making people dishonest. More than that, it is making their legal advisers connive at dishonesty. It is not a situation in which I as a solici-

tor like to be placed, but I should be misleading the House if I did not confess that my firm acted in divorce cases when we knew that the adultery was contrived for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. That cannot be a healthy or good situation for any community.
My judgment as a solicitor is that if two people can no longer live together in an atmosphere of trust and love, the sooner that marriage is broken up the better. Children cannot thrive in such conditions. Anybody who pretends otherwise has not seen the ugly side of a broken marriage.
It is that view that sways me this evening. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South that the procedure for this change in the law is wrong. I should like there to have been a much more liberal and free choice in making this change, but the balance of despair leads me to support the order. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a better law than that which exists in Great Britain. I have no hesitation in supporting it tonight becaue I think it will help to bring about a much healthier and happier relationship in our community, and, above all, it will help those unfortunate children who, for one reason or another, find their parents torn asunder.
I only wish we could get our community to face up to the reality of the fact that if they go to a church altar they should not then feel free to turn to the civil power to relieve them of the obligations which they took before their church altar, of whatever description it might be. But in regard to the State, it is unreasonable and irrational to say that people can enter into a contract until death do them part. I shall support the order because I believe that it will help to relieve a great deal of misery.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I do not think this is the right place or the right moment to argue about the procedure in the House for dealing with this order. Probably on another day and at another time I shall give a spirited defence of the situation in which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my other colleagues and myself find ourselves.
However, I readily admit that I wish that the procedure were different because


my task would not then be so heavily upon me. I frankly admit that this has caused me grave anxieties and some significant difficulties. I, too, have strong beliefs, but the responsibility fell on my shoulders and I undertook what I considered to be a most difficult and sensitive task. I am most grateful to the hon. Members who have rewarded me with kind words about the way I have fulfilled that responsibility. This is bound to be a matter in which strong beliefs and deeply held conscientious opinions are interwoven and involved. I do not want any of my hon. Friends to feel that they must, or are obliged to, go into one Lobby or the other.
If there had been more meaningful ways of discussing the legislation, if there had been a devolved Administration—

Mr. Powell: Or a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Dunn: —or if someone had put down a Private Member's Bill, I would have been relieved of the responsibility. But no one did that and, in those circumstances, it was felt that, because of the representations that had been made and the reports that had been brought before use, the reform of the law had to be proposed to the House.
I have said before to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I am a captive of what the House decided in 1974 and, until the House changes that, there is naught that I, as an individual, can do, though behind the scenes my views are well knows and I think that hon. Members will agree that I have attempted to provide, at every possible turn, more meaningful ways of hon. Members expressing their opinions. The problem can be resolved only with the help of all those in Northern Ireland. The sooner they come to a decision that will bring back the Administration to which hon. Members have referred, the greater will be my pleasure.
I also understand the forcibly expressed views about the concept of guilt. I do not always share those views, but I understand why these views are so sincerely held and I have tried to take them into account in the way that certain language has been put into the draft order.
It is true that, temporarily, there are penalties for guilt when one deceives the

law, but again I had a dilemma. How can I say in honesty that the law must hold up a religious morality when in several sectors the civil law has for long been in disuse? I am talking about adultry, lesbianism and so on. I do no believe that it is always necessarily right that a law should uphold a religious morality and philosophy.
There are times when such decisions have to be taken by the individuals concerned in concert with one another and in congregation. When they do so, the law of the land should respect their decisions. At the same time, there are major difficulties when congregations of one mind want to try to impose their views across the wider majority of the community. I am fortunate that, like others, I have the defence of and the belief in Christian principles that guide me into the ways in which I behave. I hope that I shall never have need of what is now proposed, but I must pay due regard to those who do.
I understand the conviction of the right hon. Member for Down, South and I am aware of his own attitude to previous proposed measures of this nature. However, I differ from him because I believe that in many circumstances the future well-being of the child has been severely jeopardised because of the inflexibility of the law to cope with the child's needs. If I were to admit or confess to any relaxation of my belief, it would be because of what I have seen imposed upon the child. Unhappy marriages often do irreparable psychological damage to the the child. At the end of the day some of them are left deserted, irrespective of whether there is resort to the law. Many families are left deserted, and in some instances almost destitute. In compassion I had to take into account some of the impositions that such action has brought in its wake. If I differ at all from the right hon. Gentleman, it is on that one aspect.
A number of questions have been put to me and some of them I shall answer in precise detail by letter. I shall give some general answers to some of the matters that have been raised.
I am advised, and I firmly believe, that legal aid as it presently operates will continue. If there is any need for change, by the decision of the House that power


is vested in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the basis of experience I should not be slow to bring to his notice a need for revision of the legal aid system. The green form system will continue to apply.
As for harmonisation of the law in the United Kingdom, it is right for me to respond to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is unfortunately in another part of the House attending to parliamentary duties. He carefully explained his position and asked that if I were to have the opportunity to reply to some of the matters that have been raised he would be grateful if I would convey his apologies to the House for not being able to be present.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of harmonisation of United Kingdom legislation. That has never been the attitude of the United Kingdom. There have been several fundamental principles considered for all of the United Kingdom. They have been considered in detail and the application has been left basically to the people and the community of the regions concerned, and in Northern Ireland this is no less of a requirement than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not take the view that harmonisation would usefully suit any particular purpose. Indeed, it could bring about a reaction and counter-reaction that would prove difficult to overcome.
I refer to the means and the method by which the order came before the House. I express my appreciation to those who had some kind words to say about it. One or two issues are interrelated. During the consultative months —it was a much more extended period than eight months—I was always available to anyone who wished to discuss the proposed measure.
Although the official Unionist Party made recommendations arising from its conference, of the 25 amendments which were printed and circulated, a major portion had already been determined before the results of that conference were known. Some were adjusted to take account of additional recommendations and representations by the official

Unionist Party. But many other organisations throughout the Province made similar recommendations. I should not wish it to be thought that all the amendments emanated from one source. Many people had identical thoughts. If I did not put that fact on record, I am sure that I should receive many telephone calls early tomorrow morning.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this opportunity to make the position clear. I am sure that he will be generous enough to recognise that I did not imply that in my remarks. I said that we regarded it as our duty to reflect—we hoped accurately —the views which had been put to us, and no doubt to him separately, by many groups and individuals in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dunn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not deliberately misinterpret anything that he said. That would not be the way to deal with what I regard as a sensitive subject. Whatever the House decides tonight, further discussions will necessarily have to be undertaken. I wanted to put the record straight. From a wide variety of organisations institutions and individuals in Northern Ireland there was a repetition of the need for further amendment of the original proposed draft.
I could claim some responsibility for one or two of the proposed amendments, not least in Articles 43 and 44. I think that all my parliamentary colleagues, whatever part of the country they represent, would do well to look at the provisions of Articles 43 and 44. I suggest that if it were possible to include the intentions of those articles in the law as it applies to their constituencies, great service would be afforded to the protection of children and conciliation rather than reconciliation—a very overworked word—would be made more meaningful.
I do not think that I need say anything more. I appreciate that hon. Members feel strongly about the order. I hope that they will show that feeling in a sensible and sincere way in the Division Lobbies.

Question put:—

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, Which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 16.

Division No. 234]
AYES
[11.08 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Molyneaux, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Flannery, Martin
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
Neave, Airey


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Forrester, John
Nelson, Anthony


Bates, Alt
Freud, Clement
Noble, Mike


Blenkinsop, Arthur
George, Bruce
Pardoe, John


Boardman, H.
Ginsburg, David
Parry, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Radice, Giles


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harper, Joseph
Robinson, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rowlands, Ted


Carter, Ray
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Sever, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)


Conlan, Bernard
Kilfedder, James
Snape, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing Nigel


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Craig. Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Crawshaw, Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lewis. Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cryer, Bob
Litterick, Tom
Tilley, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Loyden, Eddie
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Luard, Evan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCusker, H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Woodall, Alec


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wrigglesworth, Alan


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr James Tinn and


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Mr Ted Graham.


NOES


Alison, Michael
Marten, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Biggs-Davison, John
Mawby, Ray
Woof, Robert


Bradford, Rev Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)



Buchanan, Richard
Page, Rt Hon R, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dempsey, James
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr John Carson and


Dunlop, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr Richard Body.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

NORTHERN IRELAND (LICENSING)

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.
This order provides for certain minor but important amendments to the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, which is the principal legislation relating to the licensing of premises for the retail sale, supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor in Northern Ireland. Most of the proposed amendments to this principal legislation are necessary because of terrorist activities directed against licensed hotels.
These hotels have usually either been damaged to such an extent that all their normal business has had to be discontinued or the hoteliers, under considerable difficulties, have been able to continue that part of their business involving the supply of meals and liquor to nonresidents only. However, because the residential part of the hotel has been so severely damaged, or in many cases totally destroyed, many hoteliers have not been able to accommodate overnight visitors.
This is a serious matter, for the lack of residential accommodation has prevented such hotels from obtaining a certificate of registration with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board as an approved and fully operational hotel. As the House will be aware, a certificate from the Tourist Board is by statute necessary before a court can renew the hotel liquor licence. Thus the hotelier who has suffered attack by terrorists has in addition the threat of also losing the right to renew his licence until he or she has rebuilt the residential accommodation, thereby conforming to the statutory requirement. It is to change this very unjust and unsatisfactory situation that I seek the approval of the House to this order to right what has been a wrong, and which, indeed, has existed for far too long.
The order will also enable courts, when relicensing bomb-damaged hotels, to con-

tinue such licensing provileges as attached to the former licence.

I commend the order to the House.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: We warmly welcome the order, which, as the Minister clearly explained, is required because of the depredations of terrorists, who direct many of their activities against licensed premises as part of their campaign to disrupt the social and economic life of the Province.
Without more words, I assure the Minister of our support for the order, which can do something to help the important hotel trade and also do something to encourage visitors to Northern Ireland.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that we are not operating on this order under the strict rules which apply to the Third Reading of a Bill, because I wish to draw attention to the remarkable irony whereby, in the last debate, the author of the order was taking credit for improvements—important and extensive improvements—which he had made to it, whereas in this case, though he was silent about his achievement, he ought to have been taking credit for having disembowelled his original legislation. What we have before us is but the shell or skeleton of those proposals for a draft order which so boldly issued forth many months ago. Thereby hangs not only a tale but a salutary moral.
Among the original intentions was that of providing, within the ambit of the order, albeit subject to what became increasingly restrictive conditions as consideration proceeded, for the licensing of certain community leisure centres.
Now, the reason why that proposal was put forward was a recommendation to that effect, made by a joint committee of central and local government representatives and confirmed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland. Yet here I have a letter, signed by the Minister's own hand and dated 12th April this year, in which he points out that:
… in the event, however, when the draft order was published, six district councils wrote objecting strongly to the proposal and only two wrote in support.
The important moral which we draw from this event is not to rely overmuch


upon the collective expression of alleged opinion by associations—at any rate, associations of things as impersonal as local authorities.
A local authority by itself is a thing to be taken seriously. I would never dare to be disrespectful towards a district council, particularly a district council in Northern Ireland. But when one has an association of district councils, it is difficult to be quite certain what are the psychological and other relationships between the district councils in their individual capacity—and they are individuals—and the association in its collectivity.
What is more—though I do not think that this has happened to any extent in Northern Ireland—there is such a thing as an association "industry". Those who organise, run, speak for, perform as secretaries of, associations, are the members of a kind of guild or industry in its own right. Often they find it convenient, easy, even advantageous, to go along with whatever may be the fashion at the moment, with whatever they suspect may be likely to commend itself to enlightened opinion. Thereby they cease to be representative.
That is why it becomes necessary not to rely on legislation upon the advice and opinions expressed by associations, but to go to the councils themselves, to ask what the individual district councils are professing and wanting, and if necessary —dare I say it?—to try to get behind the district councils themselves to find out what those whom they, and we, represent are thinking and wishing.
I have no doubt that the last answer was truer than the first and that there is too great a sensitivity in the Province of Northern Ireland as to the evils entailed by the unwise use of and access to alcohol, especially by the young, for it to have been wise, especially at this stage, to contemplate any enlargement of the scope of licensing, especially in an area like the community and leisure centres where young people congregate and are catered for. The Government were therefore undoubtedly right to perform the ceremony of hara-kiri upon the original order and to bring before the House tonight only the exiguous remnants of what they had originally proposed.
In that form, there can, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, be no objection to the order. In fact, by the order as it now is we are doing for Northern Ireland what is was found necessary to do in this island immediately after the Second World War, and for the same reason. The devastation by enemy bombing had produced exactly the same problems as the devastation—fortunately not so extensive—caused by terrorist bombing in Northern Ireland; and I remember that one of the earliest measures passed by the 1945 Parliament was a small Act—now, I think, long spent—to do for licensed premises in London and other places what this order will do for licensed premises in the areas of Northern Ireland which have suffered from terrorist attack.

11.28 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know when I have received a letter which delighted me so much as the letter which I, too, received from the Minister in which he told me that the Government were withdrawing their proposals to give licences to community leisure centres. That would have been a retrograde step, especially in areas where young people congregate. Instead of developing those God-given powers for the blessing of their bodies, they were to have strong liquor made available to them.
The Government have acted wisely and well in this matter. I am sure that if the proposal had been as originally drafted, there would have been a very long debate and that many necessary representations would have been made.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that it is wise in Northern Ireland to get to the people themselves. We have had an illustration tonight of what an association said, or is supposed to have said, with authority, and then we have the actual councils which make up that association giving their considered view from their council chambers. It is the Government's duty to deal individually with the elected councils rather than to deal with the association.
I, too, have had representations from the association, but when I went to the individual councils I found that the body of opinion was different because only a few representatives were on the association. Recently a council dropped one of


its representatives on the association on the simple ground that he voted for a different course from that already decided by the council that sent him there. These are the facts of life.
For how long can dropped licences be retained before they become invalidated? There are too many liquor shops in Northern Ireland, especially the unlicensed liquor clubs that have been the scourge of our society. This week a man was shot dead because of some association either by him or his murderers with an unlicensed club. I trust that the Minister will keep his weather eye open to this scourge and deal with it, for it is a continuing curse. The battle of temperance and sobriety needs to be refought by the whole nation.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I realise that the order is an attempt to bring the law of Northern Ireland into line with the law in other parts of the United Kingdom, in view of the number of licensed premises which have been blown up or have gone out of existence for other reasons.
During the past few years, whether by design or accident, when licensed public houses have been demolished or blown up by paramilitaries or extremists of one section or another, where legitimate licences exist a number of clubs spring up overnight. Much to my amazement, the police agree to the setting up of these clubs. I have made representations to the security forces, the police and the military and, although no one tells me in so many words, the implication is that they have agreed to the construction of the premises for the clubs on the ground that it is better to have them all concentrated in one district, be it Loyalist or Republican, so that they can keep an eye on them. By the same token, I have had complaints from those living in these areas who, if they want a drink have to go to one of the licensed clubs run by one of the paramilitary associations.
What I am complaining about may not be directly relevant but it should be put on record that in Northern Ireland, particularly in the city of Belfast a great deal of recognition is being given to

people running clubs under spurious identities. They may be called social clubs but they are run by the UDF, the UDA or the IRA. The Minister should be made aware of this.
I have seen in the New Lodge Road clubs which should be given financial assistance and recognition by the Government and the community being refused that assistance and recognition. It appears that he who has the most muscle is best able to influence the police and security authorities when it comes to making an application for a licence. I shall be speaking personally to the Minister and writing to him but it is right to put on record the concern about this matter.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) brings to notice some difficulties in enforcing the law. I hope that he will give me some written statements on this. I assure him that every inquiry will be made. I shall write to him accordingly as soon as I have completed the investigations and inquiries.
To answer the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), there would be a two-year extension period. In the first instance we would look at the difficulties that might be posed because of rebuilding and the supply of building materials. The first period would be one of two years. I doubt whether there would be an extension for more than another year. That would give ample opportunity for replenishment, and rebuilding the damaged resources.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) gives me credit which I did not particularly want him to give me. I could have done without it, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Accept it as a bouquet.

Mr. Dunn: It is a bouquet with barbed wire in it. I took the view, not necessarily shared by all of my colleagues, that as there was an inter-departmental review body set up on other than this limited proposal it would be justifiable to ask the review body to report and recommend. This would have the advantage that all those who wished to do so could give evidence orally or in writing. Any decision that I would be asked to


make on any recommendation that I had to bring before the House would be so much better informed.
I admit that I knew a little about Northern Ireland before I had official responsibility. The hon. Member for Antrim, North comes to my city from time to time. I am aware of what he does and he, perhaps, is aware of what I did. I am not new to the scene but I am always willing to learn. I think that I learned the lesson on this rather quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PLANNING)

11.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
The purpose of this order is to up-date the planning law in Northern Ireland following more than four years' experience in administering the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The opportunity is also taken to include a number of planning provisions which have been introduced recently in the rest of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will recall that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, formerly the Ministry of Development, became the sole planning authority for Northern Ireland in October 1973. At that time a new planning code was introduced—the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—which was largely based on the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.
The 1972 Order has proved to be a reasonably effective measure, but some problems have arisen in the area of controlling unauthorised development. The principal provisions of this order—that is to say Article 11, which widens the scope of stop notices, and Article 7 which abolishes the four-year limit on the service of enforcement notices for changes of use—increase the powers of the Department of the Environment in this vital area of development control.
Several hon. Members and many district councils in Northern Ireland have made representations urging an amendment of the law to enable the Department to put an effective stop to unauthorised changes of use. The opening of a discotheque or the establishment of a scrap metal yard can quickly make life intolerable for neighbours. The powers contained in Article 11 will enable the Department as planning authority to take quick and effective action to halt unauthorised changes of use in existing buildings or land. The provisions are similar to the power taken in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1977 and the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977. These


measures were introduced following a review of the development control system in England and Wales.
The present four-year limit on the service of enforcement notices for unauthorised changes in the use of land or existing buildings is abolished by Article 7. An exception is made for change of use to a single dwelling house. The particular difficulty in detecting unauthorised changes of use in the conditions, prevailing in Northern Ireland in recent years, reinforces the argument for giving the Province parity with Great Britain in this field.
One other important aspect of the order deals with matters related to the protection of our old towns and villages against new development which could destroy their special architectural and historic character. Article 4 prohibits the demolition of certain buildings in conservation areas and Article 5 gives statutory authority for financial assistance for schemes to enhance these areas.
The remaining provisions are relatively minor in character, although I should like to mention that Article 15 will extend blight protection to land affected by published development or rehabilitation schemes. I am sure that these provisions will make a worthwhile contribution to planning law in Northern Ireland.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I thank the Minister for his expeditious and clear explanation of this order. A problem to which both sides of the House have addressed themselves in recent years has been how to associate the public with, and how to inform the public and its representatives about, the process of planning. In England and Wales, local authorities are planning authorities. But even in England, in my own Essex constituency, the complaint is heard that too many planning decisions are made by a process and by persons remote from those affected.
As the Under-Secretary of State has said, the object of the order is to bring planning law in Northern Ireland into line with the planning law on this side of the water. But, as he also indicated, the machinery of planning lacks the local tiers to which Great Britain is accustomed. He said that the Department of the Environment is the sole planning

authority. Of course, the Department operates through its six planning divisions and there are district development officers, I understand, corresponding to the areas of the 26 districts. But the district councils have no planning powers. They are consulted, but planning applications can be decided far from those affected.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will put me right if I am wrong, but I am informed that the responsibility for planning in South Antrim resides in the Department's Downpatrick office in County Down. The two areas are distant from each other and certainly very different from each other.
The districts have very few powers, apart from matters concerning recreation, and councillors complain sometimes that they have been entrusted only with sweeping the streets and burying the dead. Therefore, the Northern Ireland Committtee welcomed the functions to be given to district councillors under the rent order, and Part II of another order which we shall discuss later confers new powers on district councils. But I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether it is intended to add further to the responsibilities of district councils and, as regards this order, whether there is perhaps a case for involving district councils in the preparation of local plans and the control of development, subject to the Minister.
I conclude on a specific and topical subject. Article 6 provides for the situation that will obtain when law and order is sufficiently assured for barriers in shopping precincts in town centres to be removed. On this, may I sound a note of caution? Desirable though it may be to lift the barriers for the sake of commerce and convenience, I hope very much that those responsible for security will satisfy themselves that this is not done prematurely and with undue risk.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I intervene briefly as one who represents an urban constituency which is almost entirely residential. One of the provisions of this order is very welcome. I know that the Under-Secretary of State


has been very much aware of the problems which are not peculiar to South Belfast but must relate to North Belfast, which is almost entirely residential. I refer, of course, to the stop notice provision. I welcome the application of this legislation now and say that it will be a great source of relief to many of my constituents who unfortunately find themselves adjacent to industrial operations which arrive suddenly and without due planning permission.
There is another problem which is peculiar to Belfast and to which the stop regulations will apply. I have in mind the mushrooming trade in massage parlours in South Belfast and in North and East Belfast. Here, if a small terrace house becomes available, it may be bought by an unscrupulous speculator and used for this purpose. The Minister has been very sympathetic to trying to remove this kind of nuisance in purely residential areas. Like the rest of us, I am sure that he has felt frustrated by the lack of legislation heretofore in tackling this problem. Now the stop notice will not allow these people to function for the six-months period which they have claimed and used under the loopholes in previous legislation. As we have heard, they will have to cease operations forthwith when brought to the attention of the Department of the Environment.
For those two brief reasons, as one who represents an urban constituency I welcome the order and welcome especially the application of the stop provisions.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: This is an order to which I give a general but in some respects a rather guarded welcome. It blocks a number of loopholes but perhaps leaves a number of other loopholes and a number of difficulties unresolved.
One of those concerns the provision to prohibit the demolition of certain buildings in conservation areas without consent. The Minister will be aware that sometimes the owners of these buildings do not share the views of those who wish to have them conserved. Occasionally they have to be repaired and they have to be pretty well gutted to make them habitable. In such circumstances, it is not unknown for a building to fall down. Can the Minister tell us what steps he intends to take to

prevent such buildings from falling down under the attentions of contractors? It is a matter which has sometimes concerned me because it can happen more or less overnight and before action can be taken to prevent it.
Moving on to Article 7, I give a rather guarded welcome to the extension of immunity under the four-year rule. It would, perhaps, have been unjust to apply the order in its previous form, but the difficulty is that in improving it in this way for some folk, we have let some unscrupulous people off the hook. That is not a matter which anyone who has had to deal with these people through local government channels can view with any degree of joy.
I hope that future difficulties which will undoubtedly occur will be firmly and severely dealt with, because I know that when these things happen, there is a great deal of bitterness in the surrounding population and among people who have had planning applications refused.
With regard to that aspect of this order, may I ask the Minister what is the position about powers of building control officers in those buildings which have been erected and now have immunity. Some of these buildings were not only put up without planning permission but do not conform to the requirements of building regulations. What happens if there is an accident? That is something which councils and planning authorities need to take on board and to deal with.
This order also raises a matter which has been troubling me. That is the question of properties bought for development purposes, perhaps for redevelopment for housing, for road widening schemes, roundabouts and all sorts of things like that. In some cases these buildings are in towns. There are quite a number in Londonderry City. There is one area there where buildings have been blocked up. Would it not be wise if these buildings were knocked down as soon as possible?
What happens if a building has teen bought for such a purpose and is then let by the road service? I am thinking in particular of a case in Londonderry City where a block of two houses was bought for a roundabout in the Creggan area. One was let to a gentleman who was being displaced in the immediate vicinity


for a similar scheme. I understand that he has broken through the wall and is now using both properties as a shop. It is in the Creggan and nothing appears to be happening about it yet. These matters are slightly outside the scope of the order but are still relevant.
In Article 10 we find that even where there is not an area plan, applications for planning approval are treated as if an area plan existed. This area plan may exist only in a very preliminary draft form in planning officials' offices or in the Department. Yet it is treated as if it were a statutory obligation. In these circumstances, how is the applicant to know what the planning regulations for the area will be? How will the Minister obtain guidance on these matters. If there is no requirement in law for an applicant to conform to an unpublished plan, why should he be required to do so? If there is no such requirement, I believe that the Department and its officials are grossly overstepping their authority. This matter is not without its complications.
Councils' powers are very limited in planning matters. Although increasing, I believe that those powers fall far short of the powers possessed by local government in Great Britain. In Great Britain the council is the deciding body. However, in Northern Ireland it is, and apparently will continue to be, the Department and its planning officials.
In regard to Article 11, I welcome the decision to put a stop to activities which not only annoy a great many people but which can also cost people who live nearby a great deal of money following the fall in the value of their homes where unauthorised development or activities take place.
The change of use is a great bone of contention and has concerned every councillor in Northern Ireland in the past, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. I believe that the stop notices are a step in the right direction. I hope that this process will not end there. I hope that whenever a stop notice is put up, the Department or the council, or whoever is responsible, will go ahead and prosecute if the same activities continue.
I also wish to give a warm welcome to the extension of blight notices to pro-

perty covered by compulsory purchase. Indeed, I welcome the increasing powers of councils throughout Northern Ireland in all sorts of small ways. I believe that it will be very good for councillors to be given these increased responsibilities. At present far too many of them have only a small sense of responsibility.
At present planning officers are used as targets of criticism at every planning committee meeting. The Minister knows this, and I saw it happening time after time. It is most unjust that planning officers are treated in that way. The planning officers and those associated with planning were delighted whenever the responsibility for planning decisions was taken from councils and put into the hands of paid officials. I am happy to say from my contacts with them that they are not as happy with the situation now as they were initially. I hope that those who serve in other areas of public service will have learned something from the planners' experience in this conection. It is difficult for a public servant to defend himself when he cannot answer back in the same terms as those in which he is sometimes addressed.
I believe that democracy works and that the planners need a change of status and should be put in a position in which they are advising elected representatives. In those circumstances I consider that their advice will be taken, and that whenever they get into a position in which they are advising rather than directing, they will find themselves acting as partners in the planning procedure rather than being seen, as they are at present, as the enemy of the applicant and of the councillor.
This change in attitude by planners and councillors is essential if the attitude revealed by the Cockcroft Report is put into practice. The provisions of that report appear to be driving a coach and four through the planning world. It is clear that in the present form that report would leave rural planning practically non-existent. Therefore, councillors will have to get used to the fact that in future it will be they rather than the planners who will be the target. This matter will have to be considered by councillors, the Department, the Minister and the public if we are to have a happy ending to the planning procedures in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has said and I make a further plea that more powers should be restored to elected representatives in the district councils.
The order deals with planning, which is a terrible problem in Northern Ireland, as I am sure the Minister is aware. We have got to the sad position where elected representatives are in continual confrontation with planning officers. Indeed, one council has decided that every recommendation of its planning officer will be opposed. I have talked to the planning officer and the councils in my area and they tell me that they look upon their monthly meetings as confrontations. How can we ever have proper planning when elected representatives feel that there is confrontation instead of consultation on behalf of members of the community?
Let me give the House an instance to illustrate what I have been saying. The Ministry of Agriculture supported a recent application for a second farm house for a farmer's son in Ballymena, but although the Ministry and the whole council supported that proposal, the planning officer said "No". I am sure that my colleagues could give similar examples.
There was a hue and cry when planning was firmly in the hands of elected representatives. Planning officers suggested that they could do the job better, but they are beginning to find that without the co-operaion of the elected representatives, it is a very difficult task.
We shall be debating later other measures giving a little more power to councils, but the Minister would be well advised before bringing forward any more draft orders to consider which planning powers he could give back to locally elected councillors so that they can be involved in the planning for their communities.
Building control is another problem. What powers do the building control officers have in cases where those who are responsible for doing work according to building control regulations fail to meet those requirements? There has been a problem in Lame recently. A man purchased a house with an annex that was put up under the building controls and

was passed by the building control officer. The man asked about the annex and was told that it had been built with proper beams, but when he removed the ceiling he found that there were no beams and the annex was about to cave in. He went back to the council and the building control officer, who washed their hands of it and said that it was not a matter for them. Surely if building control regulations say that a building must be erected in a certain way and the building control officer passes it and gives the required certificate that it has been built in the proper way, it is wrong that a purchaser can discover that it was not built in the proper way and yet have no redress. That position must be remedied quickly.
Will the Minister explain why compensation is to be withdrawn from certain parties? I am always suspicious when compensation is withdrawn.
I feel strongly about the four-year rule and I happen to disagree with the hon. Member for Londonderry. I feel that it is a good resolution of many knotty problems. Businesses have been established and run for a considerable time, thereby providing employment.
I do not know what the Minister's Department is up to, but there has been great activity within it to try to find all the houses that have been built without permission and all the busineses that are run without permission, on which it is slapping closing orders.
In my constituency there are people losing their jobs and livelihoods as a result of that activity, which causes me great concern. I could give illustration after illustration. As the Minister knows, there is a housing problem in Northern Ireland. One of my constituents on Island Magee put all his money into a building, renovated it and is living in it. Suddenly an officer arrives and tells him that he has two months in which to get out. However, my constituent is safeguarded because he has been in the building for more than four years. It seems that a considerable effort is being made by planning departments to ascertain the buildings that have been used and the businesses that have been run without the required and necessary permission. When we are trying to bring employment to Northern Ireland, it is not helpful for the Department to start a campaign of closing down certain industries and shops.


A more sympathetic eye should be turned in that direction.
There are one-man businesses and other buildings that have been made available as living accommodation. A sympathetic view should be taken of the needs of the people of Northern Ireland, especially of those who are prepared by their own efforts and by investing their own money to do something to help themselves when so many others are looking for Government hand-outs and subsidies. Surely we should encourage those who are prepared to invest their own hard-earned savings in housing or in businesses.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Carter: I am pleased to hear that the proposals contained in the order are welcomed. We need to keep step with the latest planning laws and regulations in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, where we are still trying to catch up with the rest of the United Kingdom and trying to instil in the community an awareness of the need for planning, be it in rural areas or urban areas, we need to keep abreast of the latest changes and developments and put right any weaknesses or defects in our current legislation.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made a general criticism of our planning system that was echoed by some other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman said that it should be devolved to local authorities.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was not being as dogmatic or as critical as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I was merely drawing attention to the difference between systems on the two sides of the water and to views that have been expressed to me and asking for the hon. Gentleman's thoughts.

Mr. Carter: I am pleased to hear that. I apologise if I went too far.
All planning applications currently go to district councils. Admittedly some district councils and councillors say that they would like more control and more power over planning matters, but there is a consultation process. It is said by some that it does not go far enough. I have attended council meetings at which planning applications have been discussed. Opposition Members may not be pre-

pared to admit it, but councils do have an influence on planning matters. It is something of a myth in Northern Ireland to believe that councils have no influence at all. That is very far from the truth, as constant deputations to my office on planning matters prove. At the end of the day, as the Minister responsible for planning, I am always prepared to listen to people's objections and to the objections of Opposition Members when they write to me. Indeed, on occasion we reach agreement about individual and general cases.
Within the context of the present system, local authorities are probably most able to participate in the problem of contraventions. Councillors more than anybody and councils can play a vital role in informing my Department or planning officials of contraventions. The order deals with the problem of contraventions, with which we have great difficulty not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. We rely to a great extent on detection. If people detect contraventions and inform planning officers or my Department, we can act. But in many cases contraventions go undetected or unreported. In consequence there is little that we can do about them. I urge hon. Members to tell their local authorities, as I shall tell them when I meet them, to do what they can about the detection of contraventions.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) welcomed the stop notice provision in the order. I know that many people in Belfast, including the city council and obviously the residents in areas affected by nuisance of one kind or another, will welcome that provision. But, again, vigilance is important. We can have the legislation at our disposal, but, unless it is used, it will be to no avail. When contraventions or nuisances are detected, they must be reported. I hope that hon. Members will make that fact known to their constituents.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to the protection that we now afford to conservation areas. Some owners are obviously not too pleased when conservation orders are placed on their properties. I know that such orders sometimes affect the value of properties. The hon. Gentleman said that placing an order on a property might affect its state of health, because an owner


might not be prepared to spend money on it. If such an issue arises in his constituency, I hope that he will let my Department know. W e are responsible not only for planning law and conservation but for historic buildings. We shall be only too happy to step in and to use what finance we have to assist.
Turning to the four-year rule, obviously anyone who is outside the four-year limit at the moment will not be affected by this legislation. But, given that the legislation goes on the statute book, we would want to catch as many as possible who have contravened this planning law.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Perhaps I may ask the Minister about Dungiven Castle. When I was a boy it had a considerable amount of seventeenth century fortifications left. Today there is not a stone of those fortifications. They have all at some time or another—some quite recently— fallen down.

Mr. Carter: I do not know why that should have happened. We have only recently introduced legislation to preserve historic buildings in Northern Ireland. We are looking at the past there. For the future, we have sufficient powers to protect historic buildings. Again, however, we rely to some extent on the community and the local authorities to detect what might be going on. Anybody is free at any time to knock a building down, and unless someone is there to see what is happening and to prevent it, there is not much that can be done.
The hon. Member mentioned the important point about building standards. Even though a building may have been in existence for ever four years and is outside the scope of this legislation, it may nevertheless have ben built to a standard which contravened building regulations. If the hon. Member knows of any examples of that, I should like him to let us know. That is something we can look at outside the scope of this legislation.
The hon. Member referred to Article 10 and the fact that we can use the draft of a development plan as a reason for the refusal of a planning application. That stems from a legal judgment where the Department had used the development plan as a valid reason for refusing a planning application and its view was

upheld in the courts. We are now including that provision in legislation, for very obvious reasons. The Department must have a coherent philosophy to work to. It must either be the development plan or, in the terms of the 1972 legislation, "other material considerations".
Obviously a draft plan is a material consideration. It may not have been published, but it would certainly be a part of our coherent planning philosophy and would serve as a reference point. The hon. Member asked, logically, how anyone would know about that. Anybody making a planning application would be made fully aware of the reasons why we would approve or disapprove a particular application, and where a draft plan existed an applicant would be made aware of that fact.
I thought that the Cockcroft Report might crop up this evening. It has no relevance to the debate, principally because the discussion will now take place throughout the Province as to its relevance or otherwise. I have my views about it. I will not reveal them tonight. That might prolong the discussion unduly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Very sad.

Mr. Carter: I am not particularly sad about it. I am delighted that I cannot talk about it tonight.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) went further than anyone in suggesting that planning should be given back to local authorities. I must tell him, and disappoint him in doing so, that there is no intention on the part of myself or the Government to give planning back to local authorities.
The hon. Member suggested that building standards were not high enough. He quoted a case in Lame. I do not know of that case. I have felt some concern about building standards in Northern Ireland and I have urged the building industry to step up its standards. We have an NHBC system in Northern Ireland. But one or two cases have been brought to my attention by hon. Members and I have been somewhat disturbed at the standards as they have been revealed to me. If hon. Members have examples such as that which the hon. Member mentioned I shall be only too pleased to look at them.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The Minister dealt with the point about giving some planning responsibility back to local councils. Does he not accept that in Northern Ireland we shall never get the commitment from district councillors to certain aspects of planning and the principles of planning in area plans unless they feel that they can have some influence and can modify decisions that are made and can regard planning officers as part of their responsibilities. They must be able to see the planner, not as someone to be confronted and fought but as someone to be supported. Until we can develop a system that provides a commitment and involvement for councillors we shall always have confrontations.

Mr. Carter: I would not dispute that. I am well aware of the vital role that councillors can play in the planning process. I do not want now to go over all the historic reasons why planning is vested in my Department and not in the realm of the local authorities. The hon. Member is only too well aware of the reasons why the change was made.
Councillors do play some part in the determination of planning policy. It is true that in the rural areas it is the subject of some deep controversy and bitterness. Nothing raises the ire of councillors so much as mention of rural planning. I did not think that it was an important subject until I went to Northern Ireland, but I quickly found out just how dear it is to the hearts of people in the countryside.
The truth of the matter is that 75 per cent. of all applications are approved; that is on average, throughout the Province. In some areas that proportion rises to over 80 per cent. We are talking about only 20 per cent. or something just in excess of that. Where I think people are unreasonable is in pretending that they can have the whole 100 per cent. of applications approved. That can never be, otherwise, if it were so, planning would not exist at all.
I hope that after a full discussion of the Cockcroft Report and the recommendations that my Department will ultimately make, we can draw nearer to a position of consensus. We desperately need it because everyone in Northern Ireland, be he a countryman or town man, needs a planning system. But it can

operate properly only if it is given the fullhearted consent of everyone involved.
There was one last question raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and that was the question of the revocation of compensation. That applies only where a person is given an alternative site on an existing planning application. What we shall not allow someone to do is to get two sites for the price of one. In the past, he would have got compensation if we had revoked a previous application that had been approved. We shall not allow him to get another site and yet be compensated for the first one if we revoke the application in regard to that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for his reply. On a previous point about the Cockcroft Report, he said that there would be consultations. Will he enlarge on that and tell us whether he will be consulting the local councils and other bodies and will then make his statement in regard to the action that he will be taking?

Mr. Carter: Yes, that would be the intention. Every local authority will have a copy of the report. All the political parties and all the professional bodies involved will have a copy of the report. The opportunity will be given to them to make their comments known to my Department. At the end of the day, we shall have to take some decision or other. But I can only take it in the light of the comments that will be made. I hope that all Members of Parliament present on the Opposition Benches participate in that discussion.
I think that that concludes the discussion concerning the comments on the order. I hope that hon. Members will feel that we have made some advance here in our planning law in Northern Ireland and that even though local authorities may feel that they are somewhat left out of the realm of decision making, they will, nevertheless, participate, particularly in the area of contravention and the stop notice provisions contained in the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (POLLUTION CONTROL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT)

12.23 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the draft Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
This order is concerned with the prevention and control of pollution of the environment. As hon. Members will know, the Control of Pollution Act has been on the statute book since 1974 and most of its provisions are now in force. It is now opportune for similar provision to be made in Northern Ireland.
The Province does not experience some of the pollution problems found in Great Britain. This is not only because of its more rural character but also because it does not have any concentration of heavy industry. Nevertheless, there is a general public awareness of the need to take action on two fronts—first, to strengthen the law in order to prevent pollution, and secondly, to enable the responsible authorities to take more effective action to deal with existing problems.
Considerable strides in pollution control have been made under existing legislation in two fields. Atmospheric pollution, particularly in urban areas, has been substantially reduced by the application of the Alkali Act and the Clean Air Act; and the consent procedure introluced by the Northern Ireland Water Act 1972, by which discharges to watercourses are regulated, is helping to maintain the generally high quality of Northern Ireland's waterways.
It is in regard to solid waste disposal and noise control that the greatest need for legislation arises. Control over the location of waste disposal sites is, of course, contained in existing planning legislation, but no effective method of regulating operations on disposal sites is available, except for the public health nuisance provisions, and these are remedial rather than preventive in nature The overall size of the problem is not known since existing legislation does not enable district councils to assess the

amount of waste in need of disposal in their areas.
Moreover, beyond some provisions in local Acts and in bylaws, no effective control of noise exists, and there is need for substantive legislation to deal with the abatement of noise nuisances and to limit noise from certain troublesome sources.
I now turn to the provisions of the order, which broadly follow the lines of the Control of Pollution Act. Part I contains the usual introductory articles. Waste disposal is the subject of Part II, and here it is proposed that each district council should, on the basis of a survey of all household, commercial and industrial waste arising in its district, prepare a waste disposal plan setting out how waste is to be disposed of.
All disposal sites will need to be licensed by councils, and, by imposing licensing conditions as to site operations and by inspection and enforcement, councils will be able effectively to control sites in their respective areas. The reclamation and recycling of waste collected by a council will be included in the extended powers in relation to the waste collection duties of councils. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland would acquire powers to regulate the disposal of dangerous wastes.
By way of consolidation, existing legislation on litter and the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles is repealed and re-enacted. Provision is made also for increased penalties for offences.
The provisions in Part III introduce for the first time in Northern Ireland comprehensive powers relating to noise control. Noise problems will be dealt with as statutory nuisance, and remedial action will be possible either by councils or by occupiers. Councils will be required to inspect their districts for noise nuisances and to select possible areas as noise abatement zones.
The designation of such zones will ensure that in these areas there is no increase in the general noise level and that, where possible, a reduction of levels is achieved. As well as these general controls, provision is made for the specific control of noise from construction sites and from loudspeakers. The control of noise from plant and machinery will be by regulations made by the


Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
Although the existing legislation on atmospheric pollution in the Alkali and Clean Air Acts has proved effective, the opportunity is being taken to strengthen the powers available by amending the Clean Air Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 to bring it into line, where necessary, with the 1968 Great Britain Act and also by giving district councils greater powers to obtain information on atmospheric pollution from commerce and industry. The Department would also be able to regulate the sulphur content of fuel oil used in furnaces and engines.
Some amendments to Northern Ireland water enactments are dealt with in Part V. They relate to the Department's power to restock polluted streams and rivers and the action which the Department may take in time of water shortage.
Part VI contains miscellaneous and supplementary provisions, including articles which allow district councils to act in certain circumstances involving public health and safety, for example, in the control of pleasure fairs and control of seaside pleasure boats.
Penalties for a wide range of offences are being increased to bring them into line with those obtaining in Great Britain.
Hon. Members will have noted that the order will come into operation by means of appointed day orders, and discussions have already started with the Association of Local Authorities on a possible timetable for implementation.
I commend the order to the House.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: In our last debate we heard appeals from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies for district councillors to be given more powers, and Part II of the order confers important new functions relating to waste disposal upon district councils.
In England and Wales, I understand, waste disposal is a county, not a district, function. I have heard the argument that even the county is too small a unit for the efficient planning of waste disposal. I make no pronouncement upon that, but it is somewhat ironic that that

view should be held when one considers how few important matters are entrusted to district councils in Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows, I was in Lame last April. Without straying too far, perhaps I could say that Lame Borough councillors gave me appalling figures for the cost of refuse collection. I suggested that they might study the experiment being undertaken by Maldon District Council in Essex for the collection of domestic refuse by contractors. I am told that an overall saving of £19,000 has been recorded.
I obtained particulars of the scheme from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and passed them to one of the Larne Borough councillors. I do not know what they will decide to do—that is for them—but should they decide to make the experiment and discover how private contract can compare with municipal collections, I hope that Ministers will place no obstacle in their way or in the way of any other local authority which might decide to do the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon has told me that it is of first importance to the success of such a scheme—this is what one would suppose—that the good will of the council workers and the support of their union should be obtained, and in Maldon that has been done.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As the Minister has reminded us, much of the existing legislation on environmental protection in Northern Ireland is ineffective and out-dated. For that reason alone, I imagine that this proposal will be considered both timely and welcome.
During our consideration of the proposed changes in Northern Ireland company law, I described the view which my colleagues and I take of the general question of parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It seems unnecessary now to rehearse once more the arguments which can be summoned by those of us who seek harmonisation, save to say that the order represents yet another step in that direction and that it will accordingly encounter no opposition on this side of the House.
There is, of course, a third reason for our enthusiasm, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). That is the acknowledgement implicit in this legislation that local authorities in Northern Ireland are competent to assume and exercise greater powers and responsibilities than those with which they are presently entrusted.
It might be said that the draft order tells much of the current trend of developments in Northern Ireland and perhaps explains the great amount of harmony which has been a notable feature of at least the better part of today's proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) can speak on these matters with greater knowledge and authority than I. I shall therefore content myself with dealing with the general principles and the effect of some of these provisions on the type of problem that I have encountered.
In view of the large number of new responsibilities which this measure will bestow upon local authorities, will the Minister say what efforts will be made to ensure that the authorities are prepared for their new role, how long he expects full implementation of the order to take and what the overall cost of the operation is likely to be?
My knowledge of the situation in Great Britain is very limited, but I understand that the 1974 Act was intended at least in part to meet the difficulties which had arisen in the implementation of previous legislation. I am told that local authorities held only a watching brief on pollution problems and that consequently only a half-hearted attempt was made to implement the terms and provisions of the 1972 Act. Will the Minister say how successful the Control of Pollution Act 1974 has been in operation? What improvements have resulted from the direct involvement of local authorities in the fight against pollution in Great Britain, and what lessons, if any, does he feel might be learned from that Great Britain experience in the application of similar legislation to Northern Ireland?
I briefly mention these matters because my impression is that while some local authorities in Northern Ireland have responded positively and enthusiastically to the publication of this proposal, the reaction of others would appear to have

been markedly indifferent, to say the least. I am anxious that such benefits as are to be derived from this legislation should not be denied us because of the sort of approach which seems to have hindered progress in Great Britain in recent years. For that reason I stress again the need fully to prepare local authorities for the functions which they will have to fulfil. I have no doubt that they will do their part to ensure that the legislation has a practical effect in Northern Ireland.
I could cite numerous problems, not to mention eyesores, caused by the indiscriminate dumping of waste material. I am encouraged in the knowledge that the new regulations are workable, that they more clearly define responsibilities and that they will make it much easier to deal both with the problems which will arise and, perhaps more important, with the offenders.
It is here that I am convinced that local authorities will play a crucial role in the preparation of waste disposal plans, in the licensing of disposal facilities and in seeing to it that such conditions as they impose in particular cases are observed. I come back to the Minister's remarks on an earlier order, that district councillors are probably best placed to keep an eye on developments, particularly on the illegal extension of dumping.
On the general question of the councils' powers, I should like to raise two matters in detail. The clearest example is the case of Parkgate Quarries, where mistakes were made even in the guidance given to the owners when the plant was established. Several constituents of mine, especially a farmer, Mr. John Eaton, have been affected both by noise and quarry dust. Will the district council have authority to try to resolve the problem under these new powers, and to provide or recommend compensation either to the affected residents or to the quarry owners if it is decided to resite at least some of the plant?
The second matter relates to those articles in the order which deal with defences which may be considered in actions brought in connection with the unlicensed disposal of waste. Article 5 (4) of the order deals with the prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste and lists as a defence for a person charged in this connection to prove that he acted under instructions from his employer and neither


knew nor had reason to suppose that the deposit or use was in contravention of the regulations. I have heard it said, and no doubt the same view has been put to the Minister, that the excuse of obeying orders should not be considered a defence and that in such cases the employee and/or the employer should be liable to prosecution.
Supplementary provisions to Article 5 allow for the exclusion from the controls imposed of any deposits which are "small enough". Those words "small enough" appear in Article 6 (3) (a) of the order. I understand that the response of some district councils, not surprisingly, has been to request the removal of such a provision on the ground that in most cases large quantities of indiscriminate dumping start as very small deposits. It would seem to be something of a puzzle.
I would be interested to hear any comment the Minister might care to make about the matters I have raised. For my own part, I am anxious that we do not build into this useful piece of legislation provisions which might inhibit the full realisation of the objectives which I am sure we all share.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) I welcome the introduction of this order. While I note the reservations my hon. Friend has about what needs to be done before its implementation, I hope that the Minister will press ahead with all speed to have it implemented. There are things in the order which are needed now in Northern Ireland.
We do not need to study closely the reports of the local district councils to realise what a major problem waste disposal has become, particularly in the rural areas. Until 25 years ago a disused quarry could have served the purpose, but with the increasing volume of waste produced by society it is now virtually impossible to find a facility in the rural areas which will not disfigure the countryside.
We cannot help visiting Craigavon without seeing the eyesore of the Sligo tip which towers anything up to 30 feet above the River Bann, not only disfiguring the

locality but probably poisoning the area too. It is on fire at the moment and is polluting the surrounding residential area. The villain of the piece is the local council which, although it claims to be making efforts to prevent pollution, does not seem very effective. One of its excuses is that it cannot find a location for the disposal of the waste. Naturally, no one wants a tip in his locality.
In its attempt to handle the problem the council opened the tip at the Lurgan end of Craigavon, where the Minister has spent many tens of thousands of pounds developing the marina. Because of the dumping on level land there is now a plateau of rubbish about 12 feet to 14 feet high. Although the tip was closed and fenced by a six-foot high fence the Minister will recall the story in a Belfast morning paper last week to the effect that figures existed to show how little regard was paid to the fences. Indiscriminate dumpers have broken down the fence and are dumping along the stretch of roadway.
In discussing an earlier order the Minister said that now that we had the legislation we had to make sure that we implemented it. It is nice to see increased penalties for indiscriminate dumping, but they will not be imposed often if we are not able to implement the order. I suggest that the Minister takes advantage of the consultative and co-ordinating role of his Department, and of the powers given to him under Article 78—whereby the Department may undertake or contribute towards the costs of investigation and research relevant to the problem of waste disposal—and considers the proposition I wish to put to him.
One of the most effective and valuable contributions made to waste disposal over the generations in Northern Ireland has been the reclamation of the mudflats at the mouth of the Lagan, where much land in the dock area has been brought into use. The mudflats on either side of Belfast Lough are accessible to the railway line which runs north and south along the shores of Lough Neagh. That railway line connects through Coleraine, Ballymena and Antrim, into Belfast on one side and from the south side through Craigavon, Lisburn and Belfast to Bangor.
Perhaps consideration can be given to using these powers for the possible collection of refuse from the areas which I


have mentioned—from future growth centres which are generating a lot of waste. Perhaps some investigation could take place into whether it would be possible to transport, via that railway system, refuse from those areas and to use it for the construction of two sidings for further land reclamation in Belfast Lough. That is something which is worth considering, especially when one bears in mind the cost of collection and the problems of trying to find disposal points in the countryside. It may well turn out that that is a suggestion upon which the Minister can build.
The other part of the order which is attractive to me is that concerning noise control. There are undoubtedly many areas in Northern Ireland, especially in our smaller towns, where residential and industrial areas are side by side and where people are living in what are now becoming intolerable conditions as 24-hour working becomes the norm in many factories. I visited an area in Portadown not so long ago in the middle of an afternoon. With the noise of children playing, traffic noise and bird song, one did not think very much of the continual hum in the background. But the residents told me that if one lived there six or seven days a week, and had to listen to that vibrating hum at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning, it was very different from that which I experienced on that sunny afternoon. For some of those people it has had a seriously detrimental effect on their health. Apparently, the hum is not sufficiently loud to create a danger to their health as such; therefore, with existing legislation it has been impossible to do anything about it. But the local public health inspector was certainly waiting anxiously for this legislation to be implemented so that he could take some action. I am quite sure that that attitude is duplicated in many other parts of the Province.
I also welcome that part of the order which the Minister skated over—no doubt to save time—dealing with the powers given to councils to handle dilapidated premises and ruinous and neglected sites. When one looks around many of our towns, one hopes that councils will use these powers to tidy them up. I hope—it has not always been the case—that if councils take action on someone's behalf

they make sure that the owners pay. Unfortunately, there have been instances where sites have been cleared by local councils but where the people who could easily pay have not been charged properly. I hope that when councils use these powers, which are essential, they will recover whatever money is due from the owners of the property.
Those are the only points that I wish to make. As I have said, this legislation is essential and I hope that the Minister will press on as quickly as possible to get it implemented.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: As in the case of the previous order, there are matters just waiting for the implementation of this legislation in order to test its effectiveness. I know the Minister will bear with me if I cite one particular instance which involves both a noise problem and a pollution problem. Again, it is in the sort of situation touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—that of a residential area which has within it a dyeing operation which, first, creates the problem of noise as a result of the continual hum of machinery and in addition emits into the air not only unburnt firing material but also coloured dye which is involved in the process carried out by the factory. For a number of streets in which there are literally hundreds of small terrace houses, there are these two problems, one of incessant noise and the other of emission of both dye and soot.
I do not want to go into great detail because I have raised this matter with the Minister on almost an annual basis. But there are two difficulties. The first is that the Belfast City Council has sent its representatives to the site from time to time and it has concluded that there is not a great problem with the dye or non-combustible material. That staggers me, because I have been to the site again and again and seen for myself the effect of the dye and specks of soot on clothing hung out in the yards to dry.
If that has been the position in the past, what renewed hope have we that the council will change its mind, even with this legislation to help it? Although


this legislation may help meet any problems which are found to be in contravention of it, there is nothing to suggest that the council's assessment of the problem will change because of the legislation.
I note in this order that there is the possibility of appeals against notices served by the council under Article 58. What are the rights of appeal of my constituents on the Ravenhill Road who have the problems which I touched on a moment ago? What rights have they against the council whose assessment of the position is manifestly lacking?
I should like to be able to go back to my constituents and tell them that the new legislation will result in a far more in-depth investigation which may produce a different assessment by the council but that, even if it does not, they have the right to approach the Department which itself can take some action if there is no possibility of an appeal against the council. Can the Minister help us in that respect?
I apologise if the order deals with that point, but I am anxious to be able to reassure my constituents who live with this dual problem of the incessant hum and the emissions of soot and dye from the factory.
If the company has to insulate its building against noise, is there any Government financial assistance to an industry which has to undertake that sort of work? Although I am anxious to afford my constituents the peace and freedom from pollution which they rightly deserve, we are also anxious about jobs and we would not like to see a firm going out of business thereby placing scores of men on the dole. So, to balance the problem, if there were financial assistance available should the company have to insulate its building, that would be good news to it.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I rise to welcome an extension of council powers. I must say, though, that I welcome it in the sense that if one gets a big enough collection of pennies, eventually one has a pound. But it is a further small step in the right direction.
The House will be aware that the wish to put the lamp post outside someone else's front door is widespread. But when

the lamp post is a dump, the wish to have it outside someone else's front door is pretty well universal. One has often heard, throughout the constituencies, the hope being expressed that there must, after all, be an easy way to deal with waste, whether it is industrial or domestic. However, my experience and researches lead me to believe that there is no easy or cheap way to deal with waste. Even after it is treated and processed and one has done with waste all the things one can possibly do, one has still to dig a hole and bury something which is left. Usually it is not a pleasant something.
May I relate the experiences of three council areas in my constituency? They are Limavady, Coleraine and Londonderry. In Limavady some years ago, the council decided to make its dump in a bog. It thought it was an excellent place, that it had not very many people living close by and that it was a vast area of useless land which could be utilised for this purpose. Unfortunately, bogs are wet places and the whole plan was a nearly unmitigated disaster, with the result that that council is now looking for a new site.
Londonderry Council decided that it would put one of its dumps on a sandy site. It did. Sandy sites are generally reckoned to be about the best because one has plenty of spoil to cover the dump and one does not have the stuff burning all the time. Again disaster struck in the last year or two and in a rather unusual way. Some of the wastes were toxic. They seeped through the sand got into a stream, killed all the fish and the cattle will not drink from the stream. The end result is that Londonderry Council had to put in drinking bowls for the farms. The farmers are now very concerned at the fact that all their drains are blocked, they say from the same dump, although I understand that the council is prepared to argue that aspect of the case. Again we have unforeseen and disastrous consequences.
The third case was at Coleraine where the authorities decided to fill an old quarry. Because there was no easy entrance, it had to be dumped at great depth. They got sea gulls. I never thought there were so many seagulls round the coast of Ireland until I visited the place. It went on fire periodically and


all the plants in the neighbouring gardens died, the people complained of feeling ill and the paint came off the window frames.
Here were three councils, all with the best of intentions; all having disastrous results from their efforts to get rid of industrial waste. They were all council dumps where a considerable amount of care and expertise was exercised before they decided on the sites. In the light of that experience I can only say that even careful investigations will not necessarily uncover all the problems which will arise. In general private dumps are far worse than council dumps.
Because of all this, may I ask the Minister whether, after a council has carried out its very careful investigations, as it has to do under this order, planning permission will still have to be sought for the siting of dumps of any description? I do not think that point is covered, although it easily could be, because there are 71 pages in the massive order and one would have to go through them with a fine tooth comb. I confess that I have not done that. I wish I had the time because there is an enormous amount in it which I would wish to take on board.
The Minister will be surprised to hear me say that in general I welcome these costly proposals. These proposals undoubtedly are costly in manpower and in execution, and they will be in costly in vehicles and treatment works, whether provided by public or by private money. They will also be costly in consultancy fees. Geologists will have to be employed and agricultural interests will have to be examined. One will also have to canvass the views of chemists and chemical experts and to investigate the possible pollution of streams and waterways, which brings in the fishing community. Farming interests will also have to be considered.
I welcome these proposals because there is no easy or cheap answer. Wastes have to be collected, processed, burned or buried—and I emphasise that eventually something has to be buried.
What does the Minister see as the means of collecting commercial and industrial waste? What does he regard as a reasonable charge? Will the same rule apply to waste in its raw state as to waste which has been processed to some

extent by the industry concerned. Sometimes firms have to process their own waste before they dump it in order to put it into a relatively safe form.
I ask this question because in my constituency there are a number of large firms and allied industries which make plastic substances, and I am aware that things go wrong in these works. When that happens, one is never too sure what sort of goo will come out. On occasions some of those plants have produced a stick goo which does not deteriorate or go away, it does not get hard or wash away, but simply stays there. Some of it has been sitting in dumps for 20 years and is still a sticky goo. It looks like lasting for ever.
These matters concern those who are worried about the conservation of the countryside and about what we are dumping in holes in the ground. They are worried about the end result because that result is sometimes unforeseen, especially when 20 or 30 years hence some other material is dumped on top.
In the light of this information, will the Minister say whether the total cost of collection and treatment will be a reasonable charge put on to the cost of industrial waste? In other words, are we to treat the collection, processing, destruction or dumping of industrial waste as a production cost to the process or the factory concerned?
In some specialist applications of waste collection, what will happen if firms make their own arrangements for transportation and dumping? Many firms either carry out the work themselves, or get a private firm to transport material, again sometimes with unforeseen results.
I also note from the order that councils are to give adequate publicity to the fact that dumps are to be created in their districts, but apparently they will give publicity only in their own areas. Sometimes dumps are placed on the very edge of a council area. In such circumstances may we be assured that the neighbouring council area will also receive the same publicity so that those living outside the council area will have the right to object to what is to be dumped on their doorstep?
I note from the order that even with household waste, if it arises in an inaccessible area, the council can make


a reasonable charge for collection. How does this match up with the rate demand to the householder? Surely this will not be treated in the same way as industrial wastes which are part of production costs. People expect household waste to be collected, and we all have our bins emptied, though sometimes at rather irregular intervals. As the requirements of the countryside rise and councils lay down regulations governing the dumping of waste, an increasing number of householders, even in the most isolated areas, will demand the same standard of service as is given to people in urban areas, especially if people in rural areas are to have local dumps closed because they are not licensed, I do not see why those people should not have the benefits that are enjoyed by people in towns.
One aspect that has escaped the attention of most hon. Members but concerns me greatly is silage effluent from farms. Councils are required to lay down standards for the storage of industrial waste. It is a moot point whether a farm is an industrial concern, but silage effluent is a most dangerous poison. It is exceedingly difficult to store and to dispose of and it could fall within the ambit of the order. Can the Minister give the farmers of Northern Ireland some guidance about who will lay down standards for the storage of silage effluent? Will it be the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of the Environment?
Another matter of concern to the farming community is the removal of waste deposited on land. There is not a farmer in Northern Ireland who has not, at some time, gone to the end of his lane or visited fields in a distant part of the farm and found a load of waste dumped there. Who is responsible for the removal of that waste, especially if it is noxious waste? If it is the farmer, will he be charged the full cost of removing something that he did not put there, does not wish to have there and for which he is not responsible? Is he to be the fall guy for the scoundrel who carries out the illegal dumping? I never fail to be surprised at the number of places where one sees the most astonishing things dumped.
The order includes a reference to responsibility for street cleaning being

returned to local councils. Is it intended to put into statutory form the agreement between councils and the road services under which councils are responsible, in general, within the 30 mph signs into and out of villages and towns and the road services are responsible for areas beyond those signs? I understand that this is the standard procedure in Northern Ireland, though it is not governed by statute.
If it is to be put into statutory form, the councils will surely be entitled to ask what will happen to the regional rate which is that part of local tax which covers the responsibilities of the road services. If the councils take over some of those responsibilities, will some proportion of the regional rate be passed back to the district councils or will it go off into the wide blue yonder where no one knows what happens to it? There will be increased expenditure and work for councils and a shift in the balance of responsibility and, therefore, of expenditure. I hope that the Minister can give us some good news in that respect.
I give a warm welcome to the restoration of the right to vest for public health reasons. This right has been lacking and has held up the provision of new dumps. Councils do not have the right to vest for dumps. In those circumstances grave difficulties have been caused whenever the shortcomings of existing dumps have been exposed.
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the problem of the control of noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred to a faint noise that annoyed people at night. One of my constituents complained to me that he had sited fairly close to his house a large electrical transformer. A transformer does not make all that much noise, but as my constituent said "At 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning it would drive you daft." Having been near transformers at 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock in the morning, I am inclined to agree with him. What are the noise levels that will be laid down to govern noise control?
When considering the pollution of the air we must bear in mind the burning of oil and the sulphur content of oil. I note that the Department will be responsible for most of the regulations but the councils will be responsible in some instances


for the enforcement of the regulations. Is it reasonable to split responsibility in that way? There is the possibility of argument arising on who is responsible in any given case.
What will be the position around the docks with the loading and unloading of ships? For example, the handling of fertilisers and coal gives rise to dust nuisance. There has been a considerable volume of correspondence and a considerable volume of anger over the problems that arise in Londonderry City, where the harbour is in the middle of the city. The dust nuisance causes a considerable amount of annoyance to many thousands of my constituents. At present the Public Health Acts cover such matters. Is it intended that the order will supersede the Public Health Acts?
Finally, I have noted that the interests of the Crown are excluded from noise regulations and other such matters. Does that exclusion extend to contractors and machinery engaged in building works on Crown property? Such activities would be covered if they were taking place on private property. Are contractors working on Crown buildings excluded?

1.13 a.m.

Rev Ian Paisley: Ministers have the advantage over Northern Ireland Members in these debates as Ministers deal with their orders, do their stuff and leave the Chamber, but some Northern Ireland Members have to remain for all the orders. That is part of the whole iniquity of direct rule as we now have it in the Province, and part of the price that the House forces Northern Ireland to pay for destroying its democratic Parliament and Government.
The Minister told us that he will not return planning powers to the councils. I interjected "Because they were Protestants". The Secretary of State made it clear that he would not see any Protestant ascendancy in the Province. If we happen to be Protestants and we are elected, we can be sure that we shall have no powers given to us.
It is strange that the Minister says "District councils are not capable of looking after planning but they are capable of looking after the disposal of waste and quite good at policing our orders." The Minister says "You will police

another order. Powers over dogs and the licensing of dogs will go to the district councils." They are fit to look after dogs and they are now to deal with the disposal of waste. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) may smile, but I welcome that at least more powers are coming back to the district councils. Environmental pollution is becoming a real problem. I am glad that the elected representatives will have the opportunity of dealing with that matter.
I welcome Article 66, referred to by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). That relates to
Ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites.
There is a series of villages in my constituency which the Minister has visited—Kells, Connor, Broughshane, Ahoghill and Cullybacky—where there are dilapidated buildings. They are a scourge and a danger to the community, especially to children. I am glad that powers are to be vested in the councils so that these matters can be tackled. For example, in Carrickfergus land almost in the centre of a large building development has been abandoned. No one seems to know who owns it. It has become a dump in the centre of a residential area. Therefore, I am glad that councils are to have the power to clean up these eye-sores in their communities.
I turn now to the important matter of industrial waste. What help will be given to industry which will have certain restrictions placed on it and will have to take steps to conform to regulations on the disposal of industrial waste? Many large firms will be affected. I have spoken to the directors of one large firm in my constituency. They told me that they will have to face heavy financial burdens to conform to legislation of this nature. Indeed, they suggested that it could mean closing down because of the expense involved in modernising and equipping the factory to deal with the waste. Will some provision be made to help firms to modernise their factories so that they can stay in business? This is an important matter because it affects jobs, and jobs are hard to come by in Northern Ireland. It is important that provision be made for these matters.
I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on silage, because


that is an important matter in rural districts especially to the agricultural community.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Carter: We have had a general welcome for this legislation, although some hon. Members have had reservations about the cost. I shall deal with that matter as I go through the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davision) said that in Great Britain this area of legislation was covered by county councils rather than by district councils. He will be aware that in certain cases some of these powers are delegated to district councils here. The hon. Gentleman said that these matters were dealt with at a high level in the United Kingdom whereas in some instances in Northern Ireland they will be dealt with at a fairly low level.
I should stress that we hope that, where possible, local authorities will co-operate with one another in the provision of sites. It will be up to them whether they co-operate in providing large sites for the disposal of solid waste, but clearly it would be more economic and efficient if they were to do so. There is no intention on our part to interfere unduly in the way in which local authorities implement the legislation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) praised the Government for devolving this legislation to local authorities. Judging from odd comments that he has made in the past few days, he is making rather more of what we have been doing in giving extra powers to local authorities than is warranted. The truth is that in this case the local authorities are already heavily involved in dealing with waste. They are the principle collectors of waste, and it is only natural that legislation involved with the disposal of waste should be bound up with that existing responsibility.
The hon. Member went on to talk about implementation. That to some extent depends on the consultation we shall now have with the local authorities. In any event we have to produce the regulations. But I hope that we shall move as speedily as possible. I have not talked about this to my officials yet, but I would be disappointed if we could not

introduce this legislation well within the next year. There is a pressing need for it in Northern Ireland. We are well behind the rest of the United Kingdom. My Department will attach a great deal of urgency to implementation.
The hon. Gentleman inquired about cost. We currently expect it to be about£250,000 annually to all the local authorities involved. That depends to some extent on the degree of co-operation that results from the discussions. It is further felt that about £500,000 will be involved in bringing the present refuse tips up to the standard required by the legislation. Again, that is only a crude estimate, and the final figure will depend on the reduction or increases in the number of sites.
He asked about experience in Great Britain. I have no knowledge at my disposal this evening on that subject. As far as I am aware it has been good. We are carbon-copying Westminster legislation and one must assume that the legislation has been operating satisfactorily in Great Britain.
He said that the employee can use as a defence the fact that he is under instructions. The employer would remain responsible. We would obviously use whatever power we had to bring the responsible body, individual or organisation, to account for the action.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed at the exclusion of small amounts of waste. The reason for that is obvious. For example, a garage might accumulate small amounts of engine oil. It would not be right to use the full power of this legislation in such a case where the person concerned intended to dispose of the waste in a proper way.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) stressed that implementation should be speedy. I agree with him. He may be overstressing the problem that exists in Northern Ireland. My experience from going around the Province is that by and large most district councils are already operating very efficient and tidy disposal systems, but we can make improvements, and there is obviously a great deal of private tipping which has to be controlled and removed from the countryside. As the hon. Member pointed out, there are the odd cases where the local authorities are the guilty parties. As they are to be principally responsible


for administering the new law, they clearly must be the trend setters and provide an example for everyone else.
The hon. Member was seeking a more positive approach to waste. I hope that he recognises that in this legislation we shall adopt such an approach. We shall have to see what transpires from the legislation. Obviously, positive advantages can come out of it. He went on to cite one possible improvement, which would be to transport solid waste to Belfast Laugh where, as he pointed out, we have reclaimed a tremendous amount of land which I am assured by the local authority has already acquired a considerable value, both as industrial land and possibly in the future as housing and commercial land. So there are positive benefits to accrue from a carefully thought-out and implemented waste disposal system.
The point that the hon. Member raised about using the railway system is interesting. I shall look into that and let him know what we think of it.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) raised a constituency case which he said had been turned down on health grounds. Now we have an additional ground on which the pollution problem can be judged, and that is the ground of nuisance. That will be subject to assessment when we produce the regulations. I can tell the hon. Member from my experience in my own constituency in Birmingham that it is one thing to have regulations governing pollution but it is quite another thing to prove that the particular nuisance about which people may be concerned falls within the ambit of those regulations.
I was asked about a constituent's right of appeal. A constituent would have no right of appeal, although someone who has been found guilty of causing a nuisance would have a right of appeal under the regulations.
The hon. Member, in common with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), referred to the remedial costs that would be imposed on an industry or undertaking that was causing a nuisance. He raised the very obvious point that this would entail some financial burden for the bodies concerned. I am afraid that that is the price that one must pay for adequate pollution control. It costs money. It is true to say that in some cases in Great Britain, some indus-

trial firms have had to close down because the costs of bringing their plant up to modern standards and the standards required by the law have been prohibitive. But if the community demands a high standard in its environment, that is the price that we have to pay. I am not so sure, however, that we shall be involved in that kind of problem in Northern Ireland because, by and large, we do not have there the heavy industries that produce the worst forms of pollution.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked whether planning permission would be required in addition to licensing, and of course it would. The two go hand in hand, and I think it highly unlikely that any local authority responsible for licences would consider giving a licence to a tip or a site that is not regarded as being suitable on planning grounds. The hon. Member made the point, once again, that the costs will be high. It is expensive, but not prohibitive. I do not think that £250,000 a year, spread across the Province, is too high a price to pay for a clean environment. I do not think that £500,000, to bring sites up to an adequate standard is too high a price, either, given the eyesores that one can see in one or two places around the Province.
I was asked whether there will be a charge for the collection of industrial waste. Already industrial waste is collected by private firms, and they obviously make a charge. If local authorities chose to get into the business of collecting industrial waste, it would be a matter for them whether they made a charge. They may consider it to be a public service, as some local authorities already do. It is a matter for the local authority. But as some private firms are already in the business of collecting industrial waste and disposing of it, I think that it is highly unlikely that the public sector will get involved.
Publicity is important. If one local authority seeks to involve itself extensively in certain aspects of waste disposal, perhaps buying an expensive piece of plant which could be used to serve the needs of other local authorities, it ought to make known to the greatest possible number of local authorities in its immediate area that that plant is available. It is in its own financial interest to do so.
The hon. Member for Londonderry asked about agricultural waste. As far as I am aware—I shall let the hon. Gentleman know—that would not be subject to this legislation. It would be a matter for the Department of Agriculture.
The pollution in the docks to which the hon. Gentleman referred would clearly fall within the ambit of this legislation. The ability of a local authority to deal with it is self-evident. But, here again, one would have to look at the regulations. The nuisance to which the hon. Gentleman refers would have to be set against the relevant provisions, and if it fell within the regulations a nuisance would have been committed.
Contractors, by whomever employed—by the Government or by private industry —would not be exempted from these provisions.
I have already noted that the hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the question of cost. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, in the welcome which he gives to the legislation, that it is always possible that a firm—perhaps a quarry, for example— is committing so much of a nuisance, being eventually defined as such, that, unless it takes measures which will cost money to remedy the nuisance, it may have to go out of business.
In that connection, I may add that I have been badgered over some past months—on planning grounds rather than grounds of nuisance—to stop a quarry operating in a part of the Province. This has involved a loss of jobs, but I was badgered by the hon. Member concerned,

and rightly so, because the quarry was in planning terms an eyesore. It was expanding and becoming more of an eyesore, and there was every reason to say "You have gone so far, and you cannot go any further. You must find an alternative site." One had to accept that jobs would be lost. That may well be the case in regard to pollution, too.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North welcomed the provision which enables councils to remedy defects in properties where an owner has failed to meet the requirements of the legislation. After he or she has been fined, the council has the right to go in and remedy any eyesores or defects in the property.
I hope that councils take up these provisions. There are similar powers under other legislation. A few weeks ago, we were talking about some of the provisions in the rent legislation. I hope, now that we have given these powers to local authorities, they will be acted upon.
If I have not covered every detail, I shall be only too pleased to write to hon. Members. I hope to keep them informed. I hope that, as we proceed with the consultations with local authorities, we shall not encounter any difficulties, and if we do not we should see the full implementation of the legislation within 12 months.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION)

1.34 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
This draft order makes several amendments to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which is the main legislation relating to education in Northern Ireland, and amends the Ulster College Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1973. Since many of the proposals are minor I intend to draw attention to only a number of the more significant provisions.
Article 5 proposes some revision and simplification of the development scheme procedure, which is the statutory mechanism for publicising proposals for new schools and for giving formal approval to such proposals. The procedure laid down in Article 5 is basically similar to that followed at present and, in particular, the same statutory safeguards would continue to apply to give any interested party a full opportunity to comment on proposals before final decisions are taken. The opportunity has, however, been taken to effect some clarification and simplification of the existing procedures, and to remove some provisions which have become redundant.
Article 6 deals with scholarships, and provides for more administrative flexibility. In particular, it gives specific authority to enable changes in scholarships regulations to be made with retrospective effect. This is necessary because policy normally follows that for Great Britain but has to be adapted to Northern Ireland circumstances and legislation. This takes time, and has given rise to difficulty in the past. The new provision will enable the Department of Education to ensure that individuals do not suffer financial loss through no fault of their own if there is unavoidable delay in making regulations which increase rates of grants.
Article 10 would enable education and library boards to acquire, compulsorily, land which is needed for the purposes of

maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools. Boards already have power to vest land which they need for their own purposes and this article simply applies the same arrangements to land that is needed for voluntary, schools. The voluntary school sector in Northern Ireland is a very important one, and it is obviously undesirable that a voluntary school's legitimate requirements can be frustrated by an inability to acquire land. It is not expected that this power will need to be exercised very frequently, but nevertheless it is necesssary that it should be available.
It is normal in the case of vesting powers for there to be safeguards to prevent abuse and to protect the rights of current users of land. In this case, hon. Members will note that both the board and the Department of Education will have to be satisfied that the land is needed. The usual procedures would also have to be followed in the event of any dispute over the proposed compulsory purchase. Notice of an application must be published at least twice in the locality and in addition it must be served on all persons who appear to have an interest in the land. There is then a period of one month from the date of the last publication of the notice during which it is open to any interested party to submit to the Department objections to the making of a vesting order.
If the objections made related solely to compensation, a vesting order would be made and any dispute as to the amount would be referred to the Lands Tribunal. But if the objections related to other matters and it were not possible to meet representations, a local inquiry would be held by an independent person. Thus owners of land are given every opportunity for their objections to be heard.
Hon. Members will also see that the article refers specifically to the possibility of land ceasing to be needed by voluntary schools. In such a situation the intention is that land should revert to the board, which would be responsible for deciding what further use should be made of it. As the board has the responsibility for the initial acquisition of land, it is only right that it should also control its eventual use and, if appropriate, its disposal.
Should land not be required for another purpose, the original owner


would be given the opportunity to buy it back at its current market value. Again this is the normal arrangement where compulsory powers are used.
Article 11 deals with building grants for voluntary schools. It is perhaps one of the more complicated provisions of the draft order so it may be helpful if I take a little time to explain the background and the general scope of the article. It is a long-standing principle that when public funds help to pay for a school, the grant which is paid to the voluntary school authorities must be repaid if the premises cease to be kept in use as a school. The logic of this provision is self-evident, and it has always been accepted that it is entirely equitable that public funds should be protected in this way.
The 1972 order and the regulations made under it therefore already give the Department of Education the power to recover capital grants which have been paid if a school closes. However, these powers are related strictly to the amount of the grant that was originally paid. In the past this was entirely satisfactory, for the market value of any redundant school premises was not likely to be significantly higher than their original cost. But in more recent times, with inflation having its effects, it can very easily happen that the historic cost of school premises can be much lower than their current market value.
We thus have a new situation to take into account, and one which the existing powers do not cover. This is why further provision is necessary. The basic principle in Article 11 of the draft order is that of partnership between the voluntary authorities and the public purse. The article recognises that both voluntary and public funds are combining to pay for school premises, and that both therefore are equally deserving of a share in the eventual disposal of the premises, if and when they are no longer needed as a school. In order to be equitable both to the voluntary authorities and to the public purse, the article proposes that each should share the proceeds in proportion to the share which they contributed to the cost of the school.
Hon. Members will note that these new provisions apply only to future cases, that is, to buildings on which grants are paid after the passage of this order. Any

existing cases, on which grant has already been paid, will continue to be subject to the current regulations.
Article 11 also amends the existing provisions which govern the payment of grant on replacement premises. Under the existing provisions of the 1972 order, the arrangement is that when the old premises are sold the Department and the voluntary school authorities each take back the amount which they contributed to the old premises, that is to say, the Department would take back its grant and the voluntary authorities would take back their original contribution. Any balance remaining, in other words the profit from the sale of the premises, goes towards reducing the grant on the new premises.
These existing provisions unfortunately have two defects. First, they are fully effective only if the old premises are sold before the new premises are built. This is not common. If a school is acquiring new premises, it still has to function in its old premises while the new premises are being built. Normally, therefore, the old premises are not sold until after the new premises are built, and the existing formula does not properly cover this situation. The second defect is that they apply only when the old premises were grant-aided. If it should happen that no grant has been paid on the old premises, under the existing provision no account is taken of them.
The proposals in Article 11 would remedy these defects. Article 11 in effect proposes that the sum on which grant is payable in cases of replacement should be the net cost to the school authorities of providing the new premises. The net cost is, of course, the difference between the cost of the new premises and whatever proceeds may be derived from the sale of the old premises. Grant would be paid at the normal rate on the net cost of the new premises. In other words, the Department and the voluntary school authorities would share the net cost of replacing the premises in the same way as they would share the cost of building an entirely new school.
The object is to give the normal level of grant aid on the additional expenditure which is involved in the move to new premises, and this additional expenditure is the same, whether or not the old premises were grant-aided. These provisions of Article 11 apply to future grants


on new premises, and they are therefore not affected by whatever previous grants may have been paid.
I have taken a little time to explain these provisions fully, because I felt that it was important to make their intention clear. What we have been striving to achieve in these provisions is an equitable formula which gives proper protection to the public purse while at the same time recognising fully the rights of the voluntary school authorities to assistance, a formula that would be fair to both sides. I believe that we have achieved this.
Having given that general background to the provisions of the Order I shall do my best to deal with any points which hon. Members wish to raise. I commend the order to the House.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The House will be grateful to the Minister for the thoroughness with which he has explained this and earlier orders. At this hour I shall confine myself to two questions concerning Articles 3 and 17. I understand that Article 3 enables education and library boards to appoint committees without all of the members of those committees being members of the board. I am not clear what purpose these committees are intended to serve or from what sections of society they would be recruited. I would be grateful for an explanation.
Article 17 concerns the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. The accounts of the Council show considerable subventions to the Gaelic Athletics Association. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that Gaelic sports deserve our encouragement. I ask the Minister whether any of success has been achieved in removing the antiquated and unjust exclusion from membership of the GAA of those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and the RUC. Sacrifice and service are much in our minds at this time.

1.46 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister spent some time explaining Article 10, particularly the manner in which land no longer required for the original vesting purpose would be dealt with when it reverted to the board. The

full procedure to which he referred he might have been understood as implying to be contained in Article 10. Of course all that Article 10 does is to provide for the re-vesting of the land in the board. What happens after that, namely the offering of it—if it is not required for another public purpose—to the original owner and the rest, does not appear in that article. This is our old friend of 25 years' standing, the Crichel Down rules.
I believe that I am right in saying that the Crichel Down rules, that is, the part of procedure that follows the re-vesting in the board, does not have a statutory basis but rests upon practice embalmed in certain statements of Ministers. I may even be correct in recollecting that in Northern Ireland it depends upon statements publicly made by former Ministers of the Government of Northern Ireland. It would be useful if the Minister would confirm whether I am right in that understanding, because both the letter which was issued by his noble Friend and the manner in which he expounded Article 10 might otherwise lead to the conclusion that, somehow, at any rate in respect of education land, the Crichel Down rules were being made statutory, which I think is not the case.

1.48 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not like this order and I do not like the time at which it is brought forward. There are many things in the order which are dangerous. I am totally opposed to the role of these nominated boards. I am totally opposed to their having the power to set up sectional committees to do whatever jobs they want. The majority on these boards will be appointed by the Minister, with the minority being elected council representatives. Power is to be given to the boards to set up committees for education work. The appointees of the Minister will now have the right to make appointments. I am opposed to that.
It should be made clear that the majority of the schools we are dealing with are Roman Catholic voluntary schools. I have grave suspicions about some of the things being pushed into the order. I am not at all happy with the proposals in Article 11 (a) concerning primary and secondary education. There have been many rumours in Northern


Ireland to the effect that if Lord Melchett goes ahead ramming a comprehensive system of education down the throats of the people, there will be more voluntary grammar schools coming into being. Difficulties will then be put in the way of such schools coming into existence.
There are many things in this order about which I am disturbed. I am shrewdly suspicious that the order was stuck at the end of this galaxy of orders because it was thought that Northern Ireland representatives would be tired and weary after a long day of debate, which many of us no doubt are. Perhaps it was also thought that since we have constituency problems to deal with in the morning many of us would not be present. I do not like this order at all.
I do not know why, at this late hour, vesting powers will be given to these voluntary schools. Why is it that we are able to carry on for so long without such powers and then suddenly we are to have powers? In certain areas there would be great opposition to the expansion of certain of these schools. We need to face that fact tonight. There is no use our talking only about voluntary schools. A major religious issue is involved which we, as a House, need to face. I find it very disturbing that this matter has been almost skated over without the real issue being put before the House.
I am opposed to these boards now being permitted to appoint other boards to do their work and being allowed to bring in outsiders. I am not happy about the powers given to them to invest in property. I am not happy about very many things in the order. Of course, I am far from happy about the point already raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) with regard to the GAA and the Sports Council and, in addition, about grants to a body that discriminates against members of Her Majesty's Forces.
This is a very dangerous little order. I am opposed to it. I intend to vote against it and, as an elected representative, to register my disgust about the way in which this matter has been introduced. This is a very serious matter, about which the people of Northern Ireland need to be aware. I protest in the strongest possible

manner about the way in which the order has been introduced at the last minute. I do not like its provisions, and I intend to vote against it.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I, too, intend to vote against the order. It deserves being cast out by the House. It is 30 years since the great Northern Ireland Education Act of 1947 was enacted by Stormont. After many years of direct rule we end up debating an education order at 2 o'clock in the morning at the end of a day devoted to Northern Ireland orders. That is a disgrace.
Of course, it is no use complaining, because we have direct rule and while it continues this system will also continue We shall not get much comfort out of this Government. I am not certain whether we shall get it out of the next Government, if they are a Tory Government. I would say to the Tories that if all they have to offer is a top tier of local government they can take it back home again, because that is no use to the people of Ulster. We want the restoration of a Stormont Parliament or Assembly.
Since 1947, all that Northern Ireland has had is the disaster of local government changes which vastly increased bureaucracy and cost and diminished the stature of local education authorities to a level of subservient education boards. Those changes also destroyed the democratic nature of local government. The schools, the teaching profession and efficiency and economy have all suffered as a result.
I share the suspicions expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about this order. I believe that it was put in deliberately at the end of the day's business.
The Minister said that the order contained many matters of a minor nature, and rightly so. I think that the order was composed carefully, so that one or two matters of major importance could slip through this House unnoticed. The order is apparently innocuous, but it proposes major changes which ought to be resisted. There are 18 articles and two schedules and, wrapped up in the centre of this legislative trifle, a provision that could be devastating in the context of the Irish experience.
I refer to Article 10. I doubt whether even the worst of the Chief Secretaries who governed Ireland over the decades and centuries would ever have dreamed of doing what the Government are proposing to do under that article, which provides for the extension of power to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of a maintained school or voluntary grammar school.
At no time since the inception of the national system of education in Ireland in 1832—that is, two generations before compulsory education was introduced in England—have any Government in Ireland agreed to the compulsory acquisition of land for the benefit of a voluntary organisation of any religious persuasion or none. This Government are going back on that deliberately, and they are doing it in this way hoping that it will go through hidden in this draft order.
Throughout the 145 years of education in Ireland, north and south, the right of compulsory purchase of land has never been extended to any non-State body. Even the universities have no right of compulsory purchase and they were set up by an Act of this Parliament and established by Royal Charter. Yet here we have in Article 10 of this order a provision that introduces into Northern Ireland a pernicious doctrine. Under this objectionable provision the property of a man can be taken from him and handed over to the members or representatives of another religion. I say in the name of the people of Northern Ireland that this is a provision which is not acceptable to them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kilfedder: I ask the Government to withdraw it before we force the matter to a Division.
Can anyone imagine a measure more likely to cause dissension, animosity and distrust? The underlying principle of prudent administration, North and South throughout decades has been that property is not taken by compulsory purchase in order to hand it over to a religious body. Yet that is what is proposed here by this Government at this hour of the morning.
Perhaps the farmer whose land is affected has strong objections, as I have, to sectarian schools. Despite those sincerely held principles, under this order,

put forward by this Government, that farmer can be forced to sell his land to the religious school authorities to which he is opposed. If he refuses to sell, the land will be vested and taken from him despite his objections and protests. A compulsory purchase order will be made against him by the education board or by the Department of Education.
The same applies to a farmer who for years past may have refused to sell his land to a Church school. Possibly he wanted to keep the land because it was good land. Possibly it had been in his family for generations. Yet, under the provisions of this order put forward by this Government, that farmer will have his land filched from him. It is a disgrace, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it, even at this late hour.
Of course, its true purpose is disguised —deliberately, I believe. Certainly the remarks of the Minister at the beginning of this debate could lead me to suppose that. There is a reference to maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools, further to confuse the position.
In Northern Ireland there are two systems of education—the controlled, or State system, run by the education boards, and the private sector, run by the Churches or Church-dominated bodies, generally Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland or Presbyterian, although I understand that the Free Presbyterian Church is soon to run its own schools, so it comes in as a religious body. Perhaps it will set up a school right beside a Roman Catholic farmer, and some day in future may want to expand. What can the farmer do if he objects to that school—a religious school? His land is taken from him with the consent of the Department of Education.
We have had words from the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who opposes Article 10, as I do. Every hon. Member concerned about good reconciliation, peace and contentment in Northern Ireland should reject this miserable Article 10, wrapped up craftily in this education order.

2.2 a.m.

Mr. Carter: The first thing I should like to do is to make it clear to the House that this order has not been sneaked in at the last minute, as has been crudely


and maliciously suggested by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). All Northern Ireland legislation, as he well knows, is fully discussed in terms of timetabling before—

Mr. Kilfedder: Not with me.

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member is something of a loner in this place, and it might be difficult to get to him if ever we wanted to, but we always discuss with the Unionists Party the timetabling of legislation, and there has been no attempt by the Government to bring this business at a late hour.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Down, North knew last week when this order was coming on. He had ample time to make objections before then, but he did not want to. He just wanted to make a rather nasty, vicious, little speech this evening, which he has done. It does no credit to him or to the people whom he claims to represent.

Mr. Kilfedder: If my remarks sounded nasty it was because I was speaking about a nasty little article which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. I am not party to any secret or confidential dealings between the Government and the Government Whips and the Unionist parliamentary group in this House. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to have everything said openly on the Floor of the House. That is their right.

Mr. Carter: It was, last Thursday, and that expression of view is adequately put forward by people who are prepared to act in a reasonable way. Most of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Down, North are prepared to accept that the Government always seek to deal with Nortern Ireland legislation in the most reasonable of ways.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that it was agreed between the Government party and the official Unionist group that this education order should be brought on last tonight? There are two other hon. Members who sit in this House as United Unionists. I refer to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and myself. We were never told at any time what business would come before this House. The Minister should make that

clear, as the people of Northern Ireland would like to know whether an arrangement was made between the Unionist group behind, me, and the Government to bring this in as a last order tonight, because I do not think hon. Gentlemen behind me had any intention of having a debate on education at 2 o'clock.

Mr. Carter: It is for the hon. Gentleman to make his arrangements with his colleagues. If he chooses to stand aside from them, obviously he will not be as much in the realm of consultation as will the vast majority. He chooses to stand apart, and has to pay the price for it.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) queried the committees that are to be set up by the education and libraries boards under this legislation. These committees will act only in an advisory capacity and will have no direct responsibilities. It is felt appropriate for those who are not members of those boards to be co-opted if they have professional or technical abilities that might assist the boards.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On what sort of topics would the committees advise the boards, and will the members receive emoluments of any kind?

Mr. Carter: I very much doubt that. They might be invited to consider sport or recreation on which the boards wanted specialised knowledge.
The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the GAA and asked whether the Government had been able to make any advance with that body on the dropping of restrictions. He will know that the Government deplore these restrictions. We have consistently made our views known, particularly in the recent past, when court cases have questioned the right of the Government to give grants to the GAA. We have taken the opportunity to spell out our abhorrence of the restrictions imposed by the GAA. Unfortunately, we have not been able to persuade the GAA to drop the restrictive clauses in its charter.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked about the vesting procedure and the sale of land. Since it is a technical point, perhaps he will allow me to write to him.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) objected to the appointment of the boards and, indeed, objected in principle to the whole order. We do not see this order as being in any way controversial. I am sure that when he looks more closely at the order he will see that we are doing nothing more than establishing equity between the voluntary and State sectors.
The hon. Member said that I had skated over the issue. I thought that I had gone into some detail on various points in the Bill. As for tabling the order at this hour, I must tell the House that we have been dealing with Northern Ireland business all day. The order could have been taken at another time, but was not thought to be controversial. The draft proposals have existed for some time, there has been no objection, and we saw no reason why there would be objection tonight.
When we go through the lengthy and laborious process of consultation in Northern Ireland we are entitled to ask why the hon. Members concerned could not have approached us at an earlier stage than this. It seems strange that when the order comes before the House all these objections are suddenly discovered. They could have been raised when the draft was originally laid, and at any time since. However, no such word has come either from the hon. Member for Antrim, North or from the hon. Member for Down, North.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister said that I have stood aside from these matters. His office consults the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and tells him about the business of the House and it consults the Unionist group, but

my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and I are left out. I am a member of a different party. If the Minister regards me as a second-class Member, that is all right with me, but he should not complain that I do not make representations and carry out a consultative role when I am not consulted.

Mr. Carter: That is a phoney objection. The hon. Gentleman was not consulted on the planning and pollution orders, which he welcomed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: To be fair to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), he has accused the Government of withholding from him the circulated copies of draft orders, and so on, which individual Members receive and on which we make representations to Ministers months ahead of orders being brought forward for debate. Can the Minister clear this up? Is the hon. Member for Antrim, North being kept in the dark and excluded from the circulation list?

Mr. Carter: All hon. Members in Northern Ireland are treated in exactly the same way. There is no privileged group. If a majority comes to the Government and seeks to have legislation dealt with in a certain way, obviously we shall talk to that majority. That is for the convenience of everyone. If the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Down, North choose to stand aside from those discussions, that is a matter for them. We have to go about our business, and we go about it in the fairest possible way.

I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 0.

Division No. 235]
AYES
[2.11 a.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Sever, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Haywood)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Snape, Peter


Bates, Alf
Lamborn, Harry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cant, R. B.
Loyden, Eddie
Tinn, James


Carter, Ray
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Woodall, Alec


Coleman, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wrigglesworth, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Noble, Mike



Dempsey, James
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dewar, Donald
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Dormand, J. D.
Radice, Giles
Mr Ted Graham.


Dunnett, Jack
Robinson, Geoffrey

NOES


NIL


TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rev. Ian Paisley and


Mr James Kilfedder.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It appearing from the result of the Division that fewer than 40 Members were present, I declare that the Question has not been decided and that the business stands over until the next Sitting, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 29.

LIVERPOOL (INNER CITY AREA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

2.24 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: When the Prime Minister, in September 1976, announced a major review of inner city policy, the whole country held its breath waiting for a major announcement—a plan to rejuvenate the ailing towns and cities of the nation. For the previous 10 years the Government had indulged in innumerable investigations. There had been 15 phases of the urban aid programmes, the community development projects, the educational priority areas, the neighbourhood schemes and the six town studies divided between urban guidelines and the inner city studies. There was a study on transmitted deprivation, the quality of life studies, the urban deprivation unit, the comprehensive community schemes, the Greater London Council deprived areas project, the area management trials and, last but not least, the EEC poverty programme, which is still going on. In all, £100 million of Government money was spent on these inquiries.
When, in April 1977, the Secretary of State presented the Government's proposals for reviving the inner cities, it was seen as the culmination of a long line of investigation and research. The Secretary of State said:
we have to shift the emphasis of Government policy and bring about changes in the attitudes of local authorities, of industry and of institutions."—[Official Report, 6th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1227.]

He spoke about a unified approach to urban problems. Little did we guess that that meant a unified approach of all those in the public sector—in local and central Government—to the exclusion of private sector and industry, of even the unions, of the voluntary organisations, the insurance funds, the banks and the local people themselves.
The Secretary of State spoke of the immediate priorities to strengthen the economies of the inner cities, with suitable firms being encouraged to establish themselves in the inner areas. He spoke of policies of population movement, and from what one can gather he meant that the people were to be brought back into the inner cities.
The White Paper that followed, presented to Parliament in June 1977, recognised that a halt had to be called to the outflow of population. Liverpool has lost 150,000 people in the 10 years up to 1976. That is 22 per cent. of its population. The plan then was to set up special partnerships, but after a year we learned from a parliamentary answer that the Secretary of State had chaired the second meeting of the Liverpool partnership committee. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The Committee discussed key issues and priorities. It agreed that to improve the quality of life for those who live and work in the inner city, so as to minimise the outflow of population, must be the overall objective. Measures to improve employment prospects would make the most impact. Other priorities in the physical and social fields were also discussed. Specific proposals will be developed for the committee to consider at its next meetings.
The Committee also agreed on arrangements for consulting voluntary organisations
—we are still awaiting those—
as the work proceeds, including the establishment of a central information point on the partnership and the production of a newssheet.
The Committee took note of a proposed submission by the City and County concerning the urban programme for 1978–79. They noted representations by the City and County Councils about the Inner Urban Areas Bill and the proposed new magistrates court


building in Liverpool."—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946 c. 27–28.]
That answer was given nearly a year after the partnerships had been established, and a year after the White Paper. That was about two years after the Prime Minister had called for a complete review.
To many people in Liverpool this has all been a very sick joke, a bitter pill, because they have been able to see little improvement in the inner city, and all the evidence indicates that things are getting worse.
The White Paper that was published in June last year called for a new approach to housing. It sought to put a stop to the bulldozer and to prevent local authorities from hoarding land. Great concern for environment planning, education, social services and health was expressed. You name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is in the White Paper. The aim was to revive the inner city, the Government's Utopian dream. But it is a facade. As we can see, there is no visible change in the environment in the city. The policy for the inner city is not failing; it never got started.
I want to give three instances to illustrate the view that I am putting forward on behalf of a great number of people in my constituency and others that the Government's much publicised urban revival programme is not happening in one of the most deprived and needy cities in this country.
I cite three examples, but I could cite a great many more. Take the case of the 100 houses which are to be built on a green field site known as Crawfords playing field, in the middle of a residential area in my constituency. It has from time immemorial provided a magnificent open space, just the kind of environmental improvement of which the White Paper speaks for the population that lives around it.
This has been on the plans of the local housing association, Merseyside Improved Housing, which, of course, is a publicly financed body. The plan is to build 100 houses, which will entirely destroy the environment and the amenity. The Liverpool City Council has gone along with this plan. It is giving planning permission. This will mean that the site will be developed and the 100 houses will

be built on it. This will destroy its tranquility and its advantages.
In one of the annexures to the White Paper, which sets out the policy and how everyone should go about it—

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Steen: No, I shall not give way. I am sorry. It is because in the last debate that I had on Liverpool, when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was speaking, he refused to give way to me. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland, Exchange (Mr. Parry) will excuse me, I should like to try to finish the arguments that I am putting forward.
The important point here is that paragraph 21 of the annexure to the White Paper says:
The fall in population in many cities provides opportunities, as funds permit, for creating more open space in inner areas for recreation and visual enjoyment. Dual use arrangements with local schools may be possible. Not all environmental improvement requires a lot of extra resources.
The paragraph goes on to deal with a great number of things that local authorities can do to improve the amenity and the environment.
But in this case the local authority is not proposing to do anything at all to stop this butchering of a green field site from going ahead. Perhaps the Minister can explain how this can be when there are about 1,200 acres of unused land in the partnership areas alone in the inner city, and of those 1,200 acres, 800 are owned direct by the Liverpool City Council, a further 200 are owned by nationalised industry and there is very little land in that partnership area which is privately owned.
So we have the Liverpool City Council giving planning consent for a green field site in the middle part of the city, we have the inner city with vast tracts of vacant land in the city council's ownership, and we have a public housing association, funded entirely by the Government, building houses on a green field site which is of amenity value.
This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the principles expounded by Ministers in successive speeches and in the White Paper, and in many ways in the


Inner Urban Areas Bill. There is no point in talking about the wish to bring back houses to the inner city when in the next month or two a start will be made on desecrating a green field site and bringing population further out of Liverpool into the middle city. The green field site is not in the inner area, it is out of the partnership area.
Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to explain how that squares with the Government's policy, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is chairing the partnership committee in the area.
I should like now to turn to a secondary point flowing from that, namely, that the argument of the city council is that the families who will be living in these houses will come out of houses which are near to the site and which are to be demolished. Again, the Secretary of State has consistently stated, over and over again, starting at the habitat conference in Vancouver in 1976, that Britain has pensioned off the bulldozer, and that in the cities the bulldozer will no longer go on knocking things down. But in Liverpool it continues at an alarming rate. Hundreds of families are being displaced and pushed outwards as the bulldozer continues. This is a good example.
Therefore, instead of these houses being rehabilitated, which apparently is Government policy, that is not happening in Liverpool to the extent that it should be happening, and the bulldozer continues as the houses decline. If the Government were serious about the revival of the inner city, they would see that mortgage facilities were available for the pre-1919 houses, which at present are not within the local authority grant scheme. The older houses in the inner city will continue to be demolished, whereas the Government's policy is to revive them. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point as well.

Mr. Parry: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Steen: No, I shall not give way at the moment. I am sorry.

Mr. Parry: It is on one quick point.

Mr. Steen: All right.

Mr. Parry: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He refused to give way

to me earlier because my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) refused to give way to him on a previous occasion. The hon. Member is attacking the Liverpool City Council. At present, the council consists of a Liberal-Conservative pact.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that intervention, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is a Liberal pact. There are Labour councillors and Liberal councillors, and the Conservatives are holding the balance of power. On this issue—the green field site—the Liberal and Labour councillors are united. That is what I have been told. I understand that they will not swap this green field site for some of the derelict acres of waste land. If the situation is otherwise, I stand to be corrected, but I am told by totally reliable sources that it is a Liberal-Labour pact—perhaps those councillors have not heard what has happened here—and the result is that this land is to be built on.
I must move on now to my second example, which makes nonsense of the proposals in the Inner Urban Areas Bill and concerns the development of small businesses in the inner city. I pass over the "fourteenth Budget" and the damage done to the small trader by an extra 2½ per cent. on the payroll tax—which has been mentioned quite a bit since that "fourteenth Budget'—and I turn directly to the case of Pine Engineering. Pine Engineering is a small, successful precision engineering company in Liverpool.
Mr. Pine has told me that his company is planning to move because its premises are to be demolished for a public building programme, inner roads, and so on. Mr. Pine's situation is in a constant state of flux, because the county wants to build the inner road and the Liberals on the city council say that they will not have it. There is constant uncertainty. But Mr. Pine knows that if he is forced to move he will not be able to remain in the inner city. The Minister should recognise that.
Inner city land is currently valued at between £30,000 and £36,000 an acre. Land in the outer areas of Liverpool is currently valued at £9,000 per acre. Mr. Pine cannot possibly transfer his business to one of the vacant derelict sites in the inner area which are owned by public authorities and nationalised industry, because he cannot pay at the rate of £36,000 an acre. The Inner Urban Areas


Bill will not do him the slightest good because he cannot avail himself of any of its provisions and it does not allow him to get finance to buy or lease land.
The most that Mr. Pine can do is to move into one of the Department of Industry's advance factories, which are being built, or one of the Liverpool City Council's advance factories, which also are being built. That is what is happening. One will find that existing businesses are transferring to the advance factories, and the amount of new employment and new industry coming into the Government's advance factories and those of the city council is minimal.
Thus, the Government's aim of increasing the number of jobs and raising the level of prosperity in Liverpool is not being realised because of the artificially high land values which have been attracted by the public open spaces. So long as the local authorities are allowed to hoard this land, as nationalised industry is allowed to hoard it, the artificially high land values will continue. As I said in the Standing Committee on the Inner Urban Areas Bill, until the Government do something about land values in a place such as Liverpool, we shall see small businesses moving out and job creation reduced, and the inner city will go from bad to worse and decline
My third example is the Victor works of Lucas, which is in my constituency. This is to be closed, with a loss of 1,400 jobs. I was delighted to learn that the Government are to help in the building of a new factory and that Lucas is to be able to employ 400 or 500 of those men at that works. But—one would hardly credit it—that factory is to be built on a green field site outside the city boundaries, in, I believe, Wilson Lane, in Huyton, and no jobs will be created in the inner city.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Wilson Road.

Mr. Steen: Wilson Road—I am obliged. How the Government justify the investment of millions of pounds in a factory outside the city boundary, which means that the jobs which could have accrued to the city centre will not be there—this is one of the problems of the inner city—I cannot understand, especially when the whole direction of their policy is supposed to be for the

revival of the inner city and the building of new factories. I wonder how the Government justify that, and how the city council allowed it to happen.
There is a population drift of 25,000 a year from Liverpool. Thirty per cent. of those living in the inner city want to get out. Unless new businesses are put in the inner city as a conscious policy, that drift will continue.
With the city council's aid, the Government are abandoning the housing programme which would revive the inner city, they are giving up the intention to create new jobs; and they are financing new industry outside the city boundary. What have the Government done to persuade the council that this is not the way to conduct their business? What does the Minister intend to do to halt this drift? To the people of Liverpool, it appears that he is simply shuffling the chairs around on the deck of the "Titanic".

2.41 a.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has taken up a considerable time on this question, as he was entitled to do.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order. I have not given the hon. Member permission to intervene in this debate, and I was hoping that the Minister would reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I waited for a moment or two before calling the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), to see whether the Minister was proposing to reply. As I saw no indication that he proposed to rise, I called the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Loyden: It is necessary to describe the situation in Liverpool and refute some of the hon. Member's arguments. The decline in Liverpool has been in the private, not the public, sector. Those of us who have lived in Liverpool all our lives are aware of the tremendous changes in the city centre and in industry. Post-war planning of the city may have had many faults, but it was done on the basis of separating housing from industry. If industries of the size of the Lucas factory and the green fields site were sited in the


city centre, industry and housing would again be sited together.
This Government have done more for small businesses than any Government. Their role has been positive. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) would strongly resist the suggestion that major industries should be brought back to the city centre, thus jeopardising residential and environmental quality.
The small business concept of the Liverpool inner city area, which the Government have taken seriously on board, relates to firms employing between 20 and 50 people. The Lucas factory will employ 500 people in the first instance. The people of Liverpool and those representing inner area constituencies do not want major industries lumped in with housing again. This is a problem that we have tried to overcome.
As for amenities, one must consider where they are spread in Liverpool. There are many amenities in the areas represented by the hon. Member for Wavertree and by me, but there are few amenities of that kind in the city centre. He says that the amenities should be in one place and that houses should be built elsewhere. We want the amenities in the areas that he and I represent provided in the area which my hon. Friend the Member for Scotland Exchange represents. That would be an acceptable exchange. But to suggest that housing should be provided in an area where there are no amenities is a complete contradiction of the arguments which the hon. Member for Wavertree tried to establish in the first instance.
I may agree with the hon. Member about the problems of the inner city of Liverpool, but movements are being made in the right direction, although there needs to be a correction here and there. We are beginning to bring amenities into the area and are raising the quality of life and the environment of the city centre. We need to provide not industry but open spaces and amenities in the centre of the city, and that will not happen if the line argued by the hon. Member for Wavertree is followed.

2.46 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I confess myself surprised at the choice of

debate made by the honourable Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) this evening. It seems to me odd that he should consider the Government responsible for the alleged shortcoming of a local authority, and therefore odd that he should expect a Minister to answer for the authority. I accept that we are linked with the Liverpool City Council and the Merseyside County Council in the Liverpool inner city partnership; I accept that the Government are working out policies for the inner areas of Liverpool along with those authorities, and that we all share in a responsibility for seeing that the policies are carried out. But on the generality of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I suggest that he should address his criticisms to those at whom they are properly directed—the Liverpool City Council.
Many of us know how deeply the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the concept of partnership. Ever since the Government announced their new policies for the inner areas, and the partnership for Liverpool in particular, he has been at pains to point out why he thinks it will not work. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice when I say that he gives the appearance of wishing that it will not work. Those of us who listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Inner Urban Areas Bill, in Committee and subsequently in the debate on Report, will recall his concern for the welfare of his constituents and, in particular, that those with a contribution to make towards solving the deep-seated problems of inner Liverpool should have the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, this concern was tempered with such criticism of the work that the partnership authorities were trying to achieve and the way that they had set about the task that it was unclear whether he was trying to improve the arrangements or entirely to overthrow them.
The problems of inner Liverpool need no description from me. They make Liverpool a natural choice for a Government involvement. These and all the related problems of social disadvantage made Liverpool a natural choice when the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) initiated the inner area studies in 1972.
The House will recall the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 6th


April last year, when, at the end of a full review of inner area policies conducted under his chairmanship, he announced the Government's new proposals. Subsequent to this announcement was the publication of the White Paper, which, incidentally, took place a year ago today. That expands the statement and spells out in more detail what the Government propose to do.
During last summer, preliminary discussions were held with the Liverpool City Council and Merseyside County Council with a view to establishing the partnership arrangements. Both gave their wholehearted support, recognising that this was a positive additional thrust on the Government's part to help an area beset with difficulties. On 4th November last year, the first meeting of the Liverpool partnership committee took place.
What is this partnership? It needs to be emphasised that it is a mechanism for bringing central and local government together in a different kind of relationship. No longer does it allow each to say "This is your problem, not mine". Instead, it recognises that many of the problems faced are joint problems and best capable of solution jointly. The partnership has the job of preparing an action programme to be carried out by the executive authorities in the partnership. The programme is to be for three years, starting in April 1979, and to be rolled forward annually. This programme will be wide ranging, to ensure so far as possible, that the main programmes of central and local government are brought to bear in a more direct and co-ordinated way, to secure economic regeneration, the right policies in the housing, social and education spheres, and an improvement in the physical environment. It will also contain proposals for the expenditure of the specific annual allocation to Liverpool of £10 million under the urban programme.
I say this because, although it has been said before, it is clear that the hon. Member for Wavertree has still not understood the concept of partnership and the res-

ponsibility that lies with the individual authorities who make up the partnership.
I do not have time to cover the work that has gone on and the progress made. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper was published a year ago. The partnership has been in existence for a matter of months. Programmes are being worked out and I am confident that in due course progress will be made. Within a matter of months progress has been made in working out the programmes and co-ordinating all the statutory authorities directly concerned in tackling the deep-seated problems of Liverpool. This process has never been tried before and, despite the doubts of the hon. Gentleman, repeatedly expressed, I have faith in the possibility that the problems, as a consequence of this new initiative, will be tackled effectively for the first time.
Certainly I make no apology for the Government in this respect. I hold no brief for the local authority. If the hon. Gentleman expects things to happen much faster than they have happened, all I can say is that he lives in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Mr. Parry: The rape and destruction of the inner areas of Liverpool have taken place over a period when the Conservatives controlled the City of Liverpool and when a Conservative Government was in power. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) is not aware of the historical facts of the inner city of Liverpool.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows the city of Liverpool better than I can ever hope to. I know that he will recognise that it is a city with grave problems—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the debate without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Three o'clock a.m.